It isn't all of ASCAP, for it is a good organization for the Songwriters, Composers, and Publishers of songs. That part of it is running just fine. Not liking CC (and the like) is okay for a person, or even a majority of an organization. What isn't okay, is trying to abolish such ways that writers can use to promote their works. That is one step in the wrong direction. What Paul Williams is doing has nothing to do with file-sharing, as some tend to believe, but rather trying to get the Feds to abolish alternate licenses.
When do we ASCAP members get to vote this Paul Williams (Little Enos in Smokey & The Bandit + a Love Boat appearance) out of office? Says he was elected in April of '09, and it's past April '10, so I wonder when the next election will take place. Can't wait!
... to where this supposed "dump" was located, and only found small pieces of broken-down plastics, and no massive dump like the article indicates?
Seems there was a documentary done about this "dump" being an exaggeration, and over-hyped in the news.
I do support ASCAP persuing action against those who violate the purposes of ASCAP, but I don't support generically going after those who wish to promote alternative methods of licensing their music. It should be the choice of the creator. I will look into purposes of the action further, and will not support it if it goes against what I stated in my previous posts, as to the purposes of ASCAP. MySpace, by the way, does pay songwriter royalties (as well as sales royalties), and so do many online "radio stations". The MySpace licensing happened within the last 6 months or so, as I understand it.
Here is the note that the members recieved about the action:
"Dear (member),
"On behalf of songwriters and composers everywhere, I am urging you to support ASCAP's Legislative Fund for the Arts (ALFA).
"At this moment, we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.
"This is why your help now is vital. We fear that our opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.
"We cannot afford to lose the support of our legislators either at this time or into the future. To this end, we must urge the members of Congress to support our rights.
"Of course, a legislative campaign of this magnitude requires funds. We are coming to you--along with many other professional ASCAP members-- to help protect your future. Of course, we understand that these are tough times for everyone. Accordingly, we are asking you to make a very small contribution to wage this battle. Our thinking is that if everyone we are approaching responds with the modest sum we are requesting, it will add up to a reasonable result. In line with this, we are requesting that you write a personal check for five dollars ($5.00) or more made out to the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts. If your contribution is greater than $200, federal law requires that you provide the necessary information requested on the attached form. Please send any checks to ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts, (address omitted). Please note that corporate checks are not permissible.
"You can also charge the amount to your credit card, if you prefer, by clicking on the following link: (link omitted)
"Think of it as investing in your own future----which is precisely what it is. We will use the funds to advance our agenda in Washington on your behalf. Please read and complete the information requested on the attached form, and say "yes" to helping us help you safeguard your rights and your future income." (signature omitted)
Sorry, my commenting is a bit rare, so I don't quite have the HTML all down-pat yet. I'll try harder on keeping on top of it, such as on this reply. Thanks!
True, the EFF, Creative Commons (Copyleft), don't host songs, but some of their users use music in their creations, be it games, software, etc. And while selling a game, or software, etc, isn't what ASCAP is for, the playing of the song during an online game, for example, would be considered airplay, and ASCAP will attempt to collect royalties for the writers on that point.
I will tell you, that, being a member of ASCAP, that I have songs registered with ASCAP, as well as other songs out under Creative Commons licenses. What I do with them is my right, as the creator of the songs, and to me depends on what I'd like to see done with the songs. And, if I decide that some should be public domain, then that is my right as well. Also, if I wish to license a song to an artist for free, that is my right, too. I get to decide, depending on circumstance. But, if that song that is licensed for free to an artist, gets airplay, I'm already compensated by those broadcasters who pay the ASCAP fees. BMI and SESAC are also songwriter/composer/publisher rights outfits like ASCAP.
I do not advocate going after the EFF or Creative Commons or Copyleft movements for producing said plagiarized materiels, but rather encourage them to cooperate in the instances of assisting ASCAP in finding those who are in violation of the rights of the creator of the song/music. I do not advocate anyone doing what the RIAA and MPAA are doing. If, indeed, ASCAP ends up pulling an RIAA or MPAA, and starts suing content downloaders, it isn't what ASCAP is all about, and they won't have my support in that area. I will retain support, however, for the reasons ASCAP exists for the writers.
From the inside, this action that is being taken is a separate venture that is asking members if they want to donate to that cause. If the member doesn't donate or show support, then that is an internal "no" vote on the matter by the member.
By the way, I'm also a member of deviantArt, and have works there under full copyright and others under Creative Commons licenses per the way you mentioned in your reply.
You (generic address) are mistaken to put ASCAP in the same category as the RIAA and the MPAA, as ASCAP isn't going after the file-sharing-type of piracy. ASCAP is a songwriter/composer/publisher organization that collects royalties for the songwriter/composer/publisher of a song when it has airplay or other similar usage. Every time you hear a song on the radio, or in a broadcasted movie, or commercial that you see, the broadcaster is paying royalties on the song. Technically, the broadcaster is licensed, and the fees they pay are divied-up between the number of times the song is played, but where the royalties go to the songwriter/composer/publisher of said song. They have nothing to do with collecting sales royalties for a band that has a tune recorded. What ASCAP is going-after, are those who might take a song and publish it as their own, assisting the copyrights of the songwriter/composer/publisher of the song. Same as if you posted a picture that you created, and someone else posted it as their own. If a band wished to record a song written by another songwriter, this is called licensing, and goes through a different process outside ASCAP. ASCAP royalties are entirely different than what the RIAA and MPAA do. By going after the Creative Commons, ASCAP is going after the persons who might publish a song as their own, that is really a copyright violation, where the person uses the Creative Commons (copyleft) to attempt to bypass the copyright of the work, and thus virally screwing the real-writer out of licensing agreements with those who wish to perform/record/use their songs (as listed above). If a songwriter/composer/publisher wish to put their works on a Creative Commons type of license, it is their right to do so, and are not the ones that ASCAP is going after. In such cases, the original songwriter still owns the copyright on the song, whichever way they choose to license their songs.
What ASCAP wants, is for Creative Commons, ELF, Copyleft, to do the same thing that other websites are already doing, by looking at songs that someone wrote, or composed, or legally published, that someone else had taken and posted it as their own work, such as plagiarism, and not at all like one downloading mp3s.
I hope this clears up the misconceptions about what is being attempted by ASCAP, as opposed to the dealings of RIAA and MPAA.
Yep, I'm a member of ASCAP, and cannot stand the RIAA or the MPAA!
First off, the copyright of software under the GPL would be new every time something is changed in the code, so the "expiration date" would be perpetually extended.
Secondly, wouldn't a Creative Commons license negate a "5 year expiration" under the same perpetual extension of the "expiration date"?
Therefore, Stallman's remarks are irrelevant (IMHO, as usual).
Just my 2 cents.
"Windows Vista Secure Edition Is About To Start" "OK" or "Cancel"
-- "OK" button pressed--
"Are You Sure?" ---button pressed again--- "Are You Really Sure?" ---button pressed again---
"Aw C'mon, You're Not So Computer Illiterate To Really Believe Us; Are You Really, REALLY Sure?
"OK" or "Cancel"
...then one would think that the fuel could be made out of all biodegradeable "waste" plant matter. Collecting it would just be a small step for many, as they already sort out glass, paper, plastic, etc, for recycling. Out here, they already have the separate green bins for plant matter recycling. Would also drastically reduce the amount of garbage that people generate.
Here's the obvious: you mentioned that the community is already calling it "ECFiber". The only difference I might suggest is just calling it ECV instead of just the EC part. Or maybe ECF (?).
Whatever you call it, kudos to your community for taking on such a great project!
It's really not the studios that are doing these things, as they are separated from the big music corporations. Yes, some of the big corporations own their own recording studios, but most of them are independent. The studios only make what they are paid in rentals, and also if one of their employees is hired to be an engineer or producer. The only thing that the big music corporations have going for them is that they front money to bands (calling them "recording contracts") at high interest, and stamping their logo on those artists' recorded media. The bands locked in "recording contracts" have to repay all of that fronted money, usually over years and years if the band doesn't fare well on the market. The corporations can also squash a locked-in band if the band tries to regain control over their own music (reference CCR vs Fantasy, Tom Petty, and others, some of which were successful).
I really don't understand how the RIAA can do what they've been doing, what with the legal actions, blocking, etc, "for the artists". The "artists", which are the songwriters, song publishers and song performers, are represented by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the sort, for the payments and receipts of royalties, in addition to the Library of Congress and copyrights (including International agreements). IMHO, the RIAA, and their sort, are nothing but mobsters, trying to rough-up people via the legal system instead of street "hits".
LOL!
Actually, I was quite ignorant on who Ned Ludd was until I did a search for the name.
My reasons for not wanting dotNET are from bad experiences with it, and better experiences once it, and all applications requiring it, were removed.
Any technical reasons why you do not want dotNet on your Microsoft platform?
Too many bad experiences with some applications requiring one version of dotNET, and different applications requiring another version. In both such cases, the apps wouldn't work with the different versions that other apps used. Also, had the bad experience of a Trojan that had installed itself at the same time that dotNET was installing, which made me even more dissapointed in dotNET. I then uninstalled all dotNET versions, and uninstalled any software that used it, and feel I'm better off now without it.
Went to give this a try. Upon starting the installation, the application required MS' dotNET and started to download it. That's when I hit the CANCEL. Don't want that dotNET on my computer at all.
I think you're the only replier who understood the point. Theft is theft, copyright violations are violations, yet fair use is fair use, no matter what one believes. It is sad that when someone like me posts a point, others just assume that I'm on one side or the other, and the side they assume is the one that they are against.
I realize I could have worded that differently about the "I wouldn't be surprised", what was really meant was that I expected a ton of flaming because of that post. I should have changed that to something like, "This post is now open to flaming" or such. For some of the replies, other than yours, I will say that those who follow darwinism call themselves evolutionists, those who follow creation call themselves creationists, this does differ from Christians, and Muslums, Atheists, as well as Scientists. I do think that Slashdot should post stories that prompt an intelligent discussion on the front page. Articles that will cause immediate flaming wars should be left in the background. Articles that place groups against each other need to stay on the poster's blog page. Next time I'll try to make my point a bit more clear. Thanks again for your reply.
So, when a darwinist copies something, it's fair-use, but if a creationist copies something it's a copyright violation?
Is this "story" going to be a forum for this-group bashing that-group? It sure looks as if it is intended to be such, as it was modded up enough in the "Firehose" to make it to Slashdot's front page.
What always gets me is that one group will flame another group, then call it bigotry if that group flames them back, or disagrees with them. This goes for copyrighted material users, file-sharers/industry, race, religion, Operating Systems, etc.
Just read the posts above this one and you'll see a lot of bashing already in progress.
See bigotry at its' finest.
I wouldn't be surprised if my post gets modded down.
Just an observation,
Perhaps they're scrapping this idea to focus on the next line of UMPC/phone/you-name-it Computers, that are getting smaller and smaller (PicoITX anyone?) as time goes on. At least this would seem, IMHO, a better direction for such future portable devices than focusing on just the phone portion of development.
Very good reply. That artist-crap and cattle mentality of artists signing their recording rights to the big recording company comes from the "we want to make it big, and right now" drive of today's artists, who don't want to examine their contracts before signing them. Therefore we get TV shows about "American Idol", or the old "Star Search". This also expands beyond music lately with the reality-type of game shows covering dancing, acting, and film-producing. I will say, however, that not all of these organizations or "unions" are bad, such as the Disabled American Veterans actually going to bat with the VA for each Veteran that asks them to represent them, and following through on every case. Yes, I know, and Apples to Oranges comparison, but they're in the same store, maybe in the same crate as the musician/publisher-rights outfits mentioned in my first post, organization-wise, so to speak.
To get the artists to walk away from the big recording companies, is to resist the urge to go with them from the onset, and pursue their career independently. So what if it takes the artist a bit longer to "make it", at least they will be forced by the market to come up with good material, or be left in the garage. To "do it yourself" means hard work, exactly like starting-up any business in any field. Personally, if I decide to return to the music scene, I would do it the way I did it before, independently, but backed by ASCAP (top one, IMHO) and the Registered Copyrights as far as musician and publishing rights are concerned. Again, thank you for your good reply.
I don't know if I missed it in the articles, but it doesn't seem that the RIAA had to prove that they were the owners of the copyrights of the songs in question. The RIAA does not support the artists, and "artist(s)" isn't even part of their name. This misconception of the RIAA supporting the actual artists is what is scaring the people, or to put it in more accurate terms, they're scaring away their own customers.
Yep, a musician here, although out of practise for a few years, I still do not grant the RIAA any rights to my materials, nor to collect royalties on my behalf (as they have the goal of wanting to collect royalties on every song played anywhere). These rights do not belong to the RIAA, but to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or whatever organization that actually does represent the artist(s) and publisher(s) connected to said copyrighted materials.
The RIAA never gets around to telling that to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't all of ASCAP, for it is a good organization for the Songwriters, Composers, and Publishers of songs. That part of it is running just fine. Not liking CC (and the like) is okay for a person, or even a majority of an organization.
What isn't okay, is trying to abolish such ways that writers can use to promote their works. That is one step in the wrong direction.
What Paul Williams is doing has nothing to do with file-sharing, as some tend to believe, but rather trying to get the Feds to abolish alternate licenses.
When do we ASCAP members get to vote this Paul Williams (Little Enos in Smokey & The Bandit + a Love Boat appearance) out of office? Says he was elected in April of '09, and it's past April '10, so I wonder when the next election will take place. Can't wait!
... to where this supposed "dump" was located, and only found small pieces of broken-down plastics, and no massive dump like the article indicates? Seems there was a documentary done about this "dump" being an exaggeration, and over-hyped in the news.
MySpace, by the way, does pay songwriter royalties (as well as sales royalties), and so do many online "radio stations". The MySpace licensing happened within the last 6 months or so, as I understand it.
Here is the note that the members recieved about the action:
"Dear (member),
"On behalf of songwriters and composers everywhere, I am urging you to support ASCAP's Legislative Fund for the Arts (ALFA).
"At this moment, we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft" in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.
"This is why your help now is vital. We fear that our opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.
"We cannot afford to lose the support of our legislators either at this time or into the future. To this end, we must urge the members of Congress to support our rights.
"Of course, a legislative campaign of this magnitude requires funds. We are coming to you--along with many other professional ASCAP members-- to help protect your future. Of course, we understand that these are tough times for everyone. Accordingly, we are asking you to make a very small contribution to wage this battle. Our thinking is that if everyone we are approaching responds with the modest sum we are requesting, it will add up to a reasonable result. In line with this, we are requesting that you write a personal check for five dollars ($5.00) or more made out to the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts. If your contribution is greater than $200, federal law requires that you provide the necessary information requested on the attached form. Please send any checks to ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts, (address omitted). Please note that corporate checks are not permissible.
"You can also charge the amount to your credit card, if you prefer, by clicking on the following link: (link omitted)
"Think of it as investing in your own future----which is precisely what it is. We will use the funds to advance our agenda in Washington on your behalf. Please read and complete the information requested on the attached form, and say "yes" to helping us help you safeguard your rights and your future income."
(signature omitted)
Sorry, my commenting is a bit rare, so I don't quite have the HTML all down-pat yet. I'll try harder on keeping on top of it, such as on this reply.
Thanks!
True, the EFF, Creative Commons (Copyleft), don't host songs, but some of their users use music in their creations, be it games, software, etc. And while selling a game, or software, etc, isn't what ASCAP is for, the playing of the song during an online game, for example, would be considered airplay, and ASCAP will attempt to collect royalties for the writers on that point. I will tell you, that, being a member of ASCAP, that I have songs registered with ASCAP, as well as other songs out under Creative Commons licenses. What I do with them is my right, as the creator of the songs, and to me depends on what I'd like to see done with the songs. And, if I decide that some should be public domain, then that is my right as well. Also, if I wish to license a song to an artist for free, that is my right, too. I get to decide, depending on circumstance. But, if that song that is licensed for free to an artist, gets airplay, I'm already compensated by those broadcasters who pay the ASCAP fees. BMI and SESAC are also songwriter/composer/publisher rights outfits like ASCAP. I do not advocate going after the EFF or Creative Commons or Copyleft movements for producing said plagiarized materiels, but rather encourage them to cooperate in the instances of assisting ASCAP in finding those who are in violation of the rights of the creator of the song/music. I do not advocate anyone doing what the RIAA and MPAA are doing. If, indeed, ASCAP ends up pulling an RIAA or MPAA, and starts suing content downloaders, it isn't what ASCAP is all about, and they won't have my support in that area. I will retain support, however, for the reasons ASCAP exists for the writers. From the inside, this action that is being taken is a separate venture that is asking members if they want to donate to that cause. If the member doesn't donate or show support, then that is an internal "no" vote on the matter by the member. By the way, I'm also a member of deviantArt, and have works there under full copyright and others under Creative Commons licenses per the way you mentioned in your reply.
You (generic address) are mistaken to put ASCAP in the same category as the RIAA and the MPAA, as ASCAP isn't going after the file-sharing-type of piracy. ASCAP is a songwriter/composer/publisher organization that collects royalties for the songwriter/composer/publisher of a song when it has airplay or other similar usage. Every time you hear a song on the radio, or in a broadcasted movie, or commercial that you see, the broadcaster is paying royalties on the song. Technically, the broadcaster is licensed, and the fees they pay are divied-up between the number of times the song is played, but where the royalties go to the songwriter/composer/publisher of said song. They have nothing to do with collecting sales royalties for a band that has a tune recorded. What ASCAP is going-after, are those who might take a song and publish it as their own, assisting the copyrights of the songwriter/composer/publisher of the song. Same as if you posted a picture that you created, and someone else posted it as their own. If a band wished to record a song written by another songwriter, this is called licensing, and goes through a different process outside ASCAP. ASCAP royalties are entirely different than what the RIAA and MPAA do. By going after the Creative Commons, ASCAP is going after the persons who might publish a song as their own, that is really a copyright violation, where the person uses the Creative Commons (copyleft) to attempt to bypass the copyright of the work, and thus virally screwing the real-writer out of licensing agreements with those who wish to perform/record/use their songs (as listed above). If a songwriter/composer/publisher wish to put their works on a Creative Commons type of license, it is their right to do so, and are not the ones that ASCAP is going after. In such cases, the original songwriter still owns the copyright on the song, whichever way they choose to license their songs. What ASCAP wants, is for Creative Commons, ELF, Copyleft, to do the same thing that other websites are already doing, by looking at songs that someone wrote, or composed, or legally published, that someone else had taken and posted it as their own work, such as plagiarism, and not at all like one downloading mp3s. I hope this clears up the misconceptions about what is being attempted by ASCAP, as opposed to the dealings of RIAA and MPAA. Yep, I'm a member of ASCAP, and cannot stand the RIAA or the MPAA!
You'll see one of them shows that the vehicle has a power cord running to it, partially hidden by leaves on the ground.
He doesn't just want our loyalty and obedience, he wants our love!
First off, the copyright of software under the GPL would be new every time something is changed in the code, so the "expiration date" would be perpetually extended.
Secondly, wouldn't a Creative Commons license negate a "5 year expiration" under the same perpetual extension of the "expiration date"?
Therefore, Stallman's remarks are irrelevant (IMHO, as usual).
Just my 2 cents.
"Windows Vista Secure Edition Is About To Start"
"OK" or "Cancel"
-- "OK" button pressed--
"Are You Sure?"
---button pressed again---
"Are You Really Sure?"
---button pressed again---
"Aw C'mon, You're Not So Computer Illiterate To Really Believe Us; Are You Really, REALLY Sure?
"OK" or "Cancel"
...then one would think that the fuel could be made out of all biodegradeable "waste" plant matter. Collecting it would just be a small step for many, as they already sort out glass, paper, plastic, etc, for recycling. Out here, they already have the separate green bins for plant matter recycling. Would also drastically reduce the amount of garbage that people generate.
Don't forget about the Compaq Concerto, introduced in 1992, noted here in Rune's PC-Museum (scroll down to it) http://pc-museum.com/officewing.htm
and an old 1994 review of the same http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1563/is_n2_v12/ai_15035428
That is, if you're looking for one of the oldest subs.
Here's the obvious: you mentioned that the community is already calling it "ECFiber". The only difference I might suggest is just calling it ECV instead of just the EC part. Or maybe ECF (?). Whatever you call it, kudos to your community for taking on such a great project!
It's really not the studios that are doing these things, as they are separated from the big music corporations. Yes, some of the big corporations own their own recording studios, but most of them are independent. The studios only make what they are paid in rentals, and also if one of their employees is hired to be an engineer or producer. The only thing that the big music corporations have going for them is that they front money to bands (calling them "recording contracts") at high interest, and stamping their logo on those artists' recorded media. The bands locked in "recording contracts" have to repay all of that fronted money, usually over years and years if the band doesn't fare well on the market. The corporations can also squash a locked-in band if the band tries to regain control over their own music (reference CCR vs Fantasy, Tom Petty, and others, some of which were successful).
I really don't understand how the RIAA can do what they've been doing, what with the legal actions, blocking, etc, "for the artists". The "artists", which are the songwriters, song publishers and song performers, are represented by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the sort, for the payments and receipts of royalties, in addition to the Library of Congress and copyrights (including International agreements). IMHO, the RIAA, and their sort, are nothing but mobsters, trying to rough-up people via the legal system instead of street "hits".
LOL! Actually, I was quite ignorant on who Ned Ludd was until I did a search for the name. My reasons for not wanting dotNET are from bad experiences with it, and better experiences once it, and all applications requiring it, were removed.
Too many bad experiences with some applications requiring one version of dotNET, and different applications requiring another version. In both such cases, the apps wouldn't work with the different versions that other apps used. Also, had the bad experience of a Trojan that had installed itself at the same time that dotNET was installing, which made me even more dissapointed in dotNET.
I then uninstalled all dotNET versions, and uninstalled any software that used it, and feel I'm better off now without it.
Went to give this a try. Upon starting the installation, the application required MS' dotNET and started to download it. That's when I hit the CANCEL. Don't want that dotNET on my computer at all.
Huh? What's a Superbowl? Is that the one I put popcorn in?
I think you're the only replier who understood the point. Theft is theft, copyright violations are violations, yet fair use is fair use, no matter what one believes. It is sad that when someone like me posts a point, others just assume that I'm on one side or the other, and the side they assume is the one that they are against. I realize I could have worded that differently about the "I wouldn't be surprised", what was really meant was that I expected a ton of flaming because of that post. I should have changed that to something like, "This post is now open to flaming" or such.
For some of the replies, other than yours, I will say that those who follow darwinism call themselves evolutionists, those who follow creation call themselves creationists, this does differ from Christians, and Muslums, Atheists, as well as Scientists.
I do think that Slashdot should post stories that prompt an intelligent discussion on the front page. Articles that will cause immediate flaming wars should be left in the background. Articles that place groups against each other need to stay on the poster's blog page.
Next time I'll try to make my point a bit more clear.
Thanks again for your reply.
So, when a darwinist copies something, it's fair-use, but if a creationist copies something it's a copyright violation? Is this "story" going to be a forum for this-group bashing that-group? It sure looks as if it is intended to be such, as it was modded up enough in the "Firehose" to make it to Slashdot's front page. What always gets me is that one group will flame another group, then call it bigotry if that group flames them back, or disagrees with them. This goes for copyrighted material users, file-sharers/industry, race, religion, Operating Systems, etc. Just read the posts above this one and you'll see a lot of bashing already in progress. See bigotry at its' finest. I wouldn't be surprised if my post gets modded down.
Just an observation, Perhaps they're scrapping this idea to focus on the next line of UMPC/phone/you-name-it Computers, that are getting smaller and smaller (PicoITX anyone?) as time goes on. At least this would seem, IMHO, a better direction for such future portable devices than focusing on just the phone portion of development.
I will say, however, that not all of these organizations or "unions" are bad, such as the Disabled American Veterans actually going to bat with the VA for each Veteran that asks them to represent them, and following through on every case. Yes, I know, and Apples to Oranges comparison, but they're in the same store, maybe in the same crate as the musician/publisher-rights outfits mentioned in my first post, organization-wise, so to speak.
To get the artists to walk away from the big recording companies, is to resist the urge to go with them from the onset, and pursue their career independently. So what if it takes the artist a bit longer to "make it", at least they will be forced by the market to come up with good material, or be left in the garage. To "do it yourself" means hard work, exactly like starting-up any business in any field.
Personally, if I decide to return to the music scene, I would do it the way I did it before, independently, but backed by ASCAP (top one, IMHO) and the Registered Copyrights as far as musician and publishing rights are concerned.
Again, thank you for your good reply.
I don't know if I missed it in the articles, but it doesn't seem that the RIAA had to prove that they were the owners of the copyrights of the songs in question. The RIAA does not support the artists, and "artist(s)" isn't even part of their name. This misconception of the RIAA supporting the actual artists is what is scaring the people, or to put it in more accurate terms, they're scaring away their own customers. Yep, a musician here, although out of practise for a few years, I still do not grant the RIAA any rights to my materials, nor to collect royalties on my behalf (as they have the goal of wanting to collect royalties on every song played anywhere). These rights do not belong to the RIAA, but to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or whatever organization that actually does represent the artist(s) and publisher(s) connected to said copyrighted materials. The RIAA never gets around to telling that to the public.