Shocking ignorance of their own industry? No kidding. They kind of forgot the RIAA and MPAA did the same thing, only worse - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/46026
Cheers!
I'm originally from London and that said, Ida fort OI, MATE! YOUR F***IN' FLIES ARE OPEN! woodabin even betah. Wish oida fort ov it.
On second thoughts, though, it wouldn't have worked. Only one of the RIAA minions is male. So maybe you're correct;p
Cheers!
Jon - p2pnet
p2pnet ran a story centering on the corporate music industry use of local police in a raid on two flea markets in Oregon, and I've had several emails mirroring some of the comments in the Slashdot post on this. They say, in effect, Why shouldn't the police be acting against counterfeiters?
I didn't say, and I'm not saying, that shouldn't be happening. Rather, I was trying to underscore the completely distorted emphasis on what is, after all, a minor event in the scheme of things.
Thanks to an ongoing PR blitzkrieg in the mainstream media, duping music in any way, shape or form is coming to be regarded as a major crime and police forces are being suborned by the entertainment industries to act as copyright cops and in the process, they're being stopped from dealing with far more important incidents.
Counterfeiters are lumped together with file sharers under the now-generic term 'piracy,' which makes it much easier for the Big 4 - EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) - to drag innocent men, women and children into court, accusing them of being thieves and criminals of the same ilk as the counterfeiters. But there's no similarity whatsoever. And not one of these approximately 30,000 cases has yet been decided, and no one has yet been found guilty of the non-existent crime of file sharing, or anything else.
Sharing means exactly that. Sharing. No one has deprived of something he she used to own, no money has changed hands and it's often argued that file sharing is, in fact, an invaluable form of viral marketing.
The Big 4 use their so-called trade organisations such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), BPI (British Phonographic Industry), IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) or, CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), to name but a few, to suggest files share shared equal sales lost, and that sharing is exactly the same as someone walking into a retail outlet and shoplifting ------- or duplicating a disc and selling it in a flea market.
The story I refer to, published in The Oregonian, says police grabbed, "50,000 items worth about $758,000". The implication is this was all music industry 'product'. But also mentioned, though only in passing, are, "knockoff designer purses, sunglasses and clothing, and counterfeit brand-name toys".
The owners of these items would no doubt love to see the police giving the same kind of undivided attention to their products as the CDs and DVDs. But that isn't happening.
The story says Beaverton police, "got a tip about counterfeit items being sold at a Beaverton market in December, and the investigation led them to the Hillsboro flea markets".
No prizes for guessing where the tip came from, and about "20 recording and movie industry investigators" arrived from California to "help" police (who numbered in their dozens, according to the story) identify counterfeit items.
Beaverton's population in 2006 was, says the Wikipedia, estimated at 84,270. So you'd hardly call it a major city. Nonetheless, the movie and music cartels assigned 20, TWENTY!, 'investigators' with "dozens of police officers" taking part in the raid?
The report says the CDs were going for $4.50 each, and the DVDs for between $4 and $12. But let's deduct, say, $10,000 for the sunglasses, etc. That leaves $748,000 for 50,000 (or so) DVDs and CDs, which also means the $4.50 to $12.00 claim doesn't compute.
Meanwhile, the issue isn't whether or not counterfeiting is illegal, or if police
Given that Slashdot has the temerity to run an item directly or indirectly linking to other links which link to articles or links linking to the links Crookes objects as he tries to sue the entire Internet, does it mean slashdot will soon see itself listed as a defendant in a Crookes case?
Slashdot Mirror
They are indeed their own worst enemies. And more power to them. heh. Cheers!
Shocking ignorance of their own industry? No kidding. They kind of forgot the RIAA and MPAA did the same thing, only worse - http://www.p2pnet.net/story/46026 Cheers!
Hi: Sorry - p2pnet is having tech problems, but you should be able to get to the articles now @ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18836 and http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18851 Cheers! Jon
I'm originally from London and that said, Ida fort OI, MATE! YOUR F***IN' FLIES ARE OPEN! woodabin even betah. Wish oida fort ov it. On second thoughts, though, it wouldn't have worked. Only one of the RIAA minions is male. So maybe you're correct ;p
Cheers!
Jon - p2pnet
I didn't say, and I'm not saying, that shouldn't be happening. Rather, I was trying to underscore the completely distorted emphasis on what is, after all, a minor event in the scheme of things.
Thanks to an ongoing PR blitzkrieg in the mainstream media, duping music in any way, shape or form is coming to be regarded as a major crime and police forces are being suborned by the entertainment industries to act as copyright cops and in the process, they're being stopped from dealing with far more important incidents.
Counterfeiters are lumped together with file sharers under the now-generic term 'piracy,' which makes it much easier for the Big 4 - EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) - to drag innocent men, women and children into court, accusing them of being thieves and criminals of the same ilk as the counterfeiters. But there's no similarity whatsoever. And not one of these approximately 30,000 cases has yet been decided, and no one has yet been found guilty of the non-existent crime of file sharing, or anything else.
Sharing means exactly that. Sharing. No one has deprived of something he she used to own, no money has changed hands and it's often argued that file sharing is, in fact, an invaluable form of viral marketing.
The Big 4 use their so-called trade organisations such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), BPI (British Phonographic Industry), IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) or, CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), to name but a few, to suggest files share shared equal sales lost, and that sharing is exactly the same as someone walking into a retail outlet and shoplifting ------- or duplicating a disc and selling it in a flea market.
The story I refer to, published in The Oregonian, says police grabbed, "50,000 items worth about $758,000". The implication is this was all music industry 'product'. But also mentioned, though only in passing, are, "knockoff designer purses, sunglasses and clothing, and counterfeit brand-name toys".
The owners of these items would no doubt love to see the police giving the same kind of undivided attention to their products as the CDs and DVDs. But that isn't happening.
The story says Beaverton police, "got a tip about counterfeit items being sold at a Beaverton market in December, and the investigation led them to the Hillsboro flea markets".
No prizes for guessing where the tip came from, and about "20 recording and movie industry investigators" arrived from California to "help" police (who numbered in their dozens, according to the story) identify counterfeit items.
Beaverton's population in 2006 was, says the Wikipedia, estimated at 84,270. So you'd hardly call it a major city. Nonetheless, the movie and music cartels assigned 20, TWENTY!, 'investigators' with "dozens of police officers" taking part in the raid?
The report says the CDs were going for $4.50 each, and the DVDs for between $4 and $12. But let's deduct, say, $10,000 for the sunglasses, etc. That leaves $748,000 for 50,000 (or so) DVDs and CDs, which also means the $4.50 to $12.00 claim doesn't compute.
Meanwhile, the issue isn't whether or not counterfeiting is illegal, or if police
Given that Slashdot has the temerity to run an item directly or indirectly linking to other links which link to articles or links linking to the links Crookes objects as he tries to sue the entire Internet, does it mean slashdot will soon see itself listed as a defendant in a Crookes case?