To do that you have to round up a majority of the voters.
1. How do you round up voters when the majority don't care and refuse to see things from the perspective that we have?
2. On the other hand... the hell with copyright infringement. There are a plethora of sources that offer free (as in liberty) content. Let them pass these laws and punish those who would rather listen/watch/use the illegal "proprietary" bits.
3. On yet a third hand, as somebody pointed out earlier... this is a proposal in Congress that a couple of right-wing nut jobs (Lamar Smith & Gonzalez) are in favor of... but I don't believe a large enough portion of Congress would even care to bring this type of thing to vote.
If you really think the country needs reforming, need to change (1). If digital protection is the root of the problem, you can personally move towards adopting (2). If this bill is the problem, write your Congressperson and make sure he knows how to vote about (3).
I have a question about downloading TV shows from iTunes. Are you entitled to delete and redownload, or are you forced to be the custodian of the content you download? In other words, if your computer crashes, can you get it all back?
Also, how easy would downloading from iTunes and burning the content to DVD and then sticking it in a CD wallet with an appropriate Sharpie labeled identification? Does Digital Rights Management step in to prevent this, or would I need software that can circumvent DRM?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Progress doesn't depend on the foolish. It depends on the unreasonable men and women who refuse to take things at face value and mindless act a certain way "that's the way they've alway been done".
The correct version of your quotation is attributed to George Bernard Shaw. http://knowprose.com/node/12260 It is famous enough, that misquoting it makes *you* look like a fool.
There is a major problem with taxing energy use, as opposed to income. With income tax, we draw a line in the sand and say "it you earn less than $x, you pay y% less" (Everybody who makes more than $x, in the current US tax system, pays in the range of 25-30%). I suppose you could institute a "progressive tax" on energy usage, but if you really wanted to fund the government it would have to be really, really high. Prohibitively high. So high, that the people who can afford to pay it would curb their energy usage (which is what you want), but the taxes feeding the programs that the country needs to operate would be in trouble. The only chance of collecting for absurbly high energy usage would be from warehouses and office buildings... which already turn over significant portions of revenue to the tax system.
To put teeth to the argument, though, you would propose something similar to the following:
low usage, 0-500 Watt*hours - $0.02 per
mid usage, 500-2500 Watt*hours - $0.20 per
high usage, 2500-10,000 Watt*hours - $2.00 per
uber usage, 10,000+ Watt*hours - $20.00 per
I don't pay a monthly energy bill, and when I did I didn't pay much attention to utilization, so these numbers may be off by several orders of magnitude... though the point was highlighting my belief that to make it work, you'd have to make it insane for somebody to let their usage enter into the upper brackets.
I start to cringe and ease off the acceleration when it drops below 30.
That's funny... I thought Prius was supposed to get around 50 MPG. I have a Sentra, and based on Odometer readings and fueling... I consistantly get 30 MPG. When I bought it new in 2004, it claimed 33-35 range.
I also don't tailgate, though not because I care about fuel consumption. Instead, I do it because I'm not an asshole. If it takes a fuel gauge for you act respectfully towards your fellow drivers on the road, power to the gauge.
An internet browser, or send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to...
EoL
PO Box 231
Scenectady NY 12345
with a request for the species that you are interested in. Please allow 6-8 weeks for processing and delivering while the Internet pages are processed for you.
kfogel, I enjoyed you essay... and thought you made some excellent points.
Feel free to browse some of my posts, as I enjoy discourse on this topic.
it is not necessarily good that an author be able control the distribution and use of their work.
Good point, but how do you deal with the dual-edged sword of an author who produces his work in exchange for the opportunity to earn a living? This type of author has a notion that he needs to control his work, or else it is no good for him.
I think the root of the issue is in the misconception of work=>paycheck=>survive. With the enormous gains in production from the progress of the 20th Century, I argue that survival of billions can be accomplished by production from millions... or by a very slight production from everybody. This arguement usually gets dismissed as communist or wishful-thinking... though the root of communism and Open Source are both one-and-the-same, COMMUNITY. The value of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.
The other root of the problem is that the production of goods and services is, by and large, controlled by organizations that need their ownership rights of control to perpetuate their own relevance... so when you say "it is not good that the author control" you are indirectly including "authors" like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, IBM, and Google. These "authors" aren't about to let you (or the legislature) tell them that they don't own the code they produce (unless it serves their own internally motivated needs).
Does that make sense? If you can answer those points (and realize that I agree with you), then there would be significantly more worth to the "abolishionist" movement.
I think if you write a story, or a song or even a software application you're entitled to control ownership rights of it. Why shouldn't you be? I'm generally curious why authors shouldn't be allowed to have ownership of their works.
Good questions...
Ownership vs. credit, were part of the focus of the article. Authors, I believe, care more about credit than ownership. I personally care mainly about credit. Ownership is a byproduct of the economy, but read on to see if my personal situation can shine some light on your curiosity...
===
Last summer I drove across country with a video camera and produced the trip into a series of chapters that were authored into a DVD that I gave to friends and family. I also posted this to Google Video and explicitly slapped a by-sa/2.5 Creative Commons into each of the credit reels. The production is better than typical family movies, though by no means professional. I did make it a point to add music to the soundtrack that was covered by similar licenses.
Do I expect anybody to care that my work was released the way it was? No. Do I expect to draw any financial benefit from the work I did? Also, no. It was a labor of love. And I still watch the movies from time to time, because they are awesome (for me). And twenty years from now, I'll still watch them. Additionally, I'm glad to have given 2,500 people the opportunity to see a full video depicting the eruption of Old Faithful (by far, my most popular movie... though in my opinion, not the best).
On the other hand, I also write. I've written a good 80% of a novel, and I admit that I am truly conflicted about selling it. I *want* to quit my day job so I can concentrate of writing fulltime. On the other hand, I don't want to turn over my rights to a publishing company (which is what one does, when they get published). I truly want my work to be available, though in order to mobilize myself to a position to lose the day job, giving it away isn't feasible.
That is why I favor free (as in speech) software, but also free (as in beer) tangible goods.
You don't need to point out the definition of what I've described. I'm well aware, and equally aware of the issue of greed.
Thanks for not outright flaming, which many are prone to do when the mention of something so controversion is mentioned.
And like I said, the example was oversimplified. The less simplified explanation would discuss things like greed and the human nature of taking advantage of a free ride, when one is available... but that would take more time to write than a simple/. post.
Bulmash had some interesting points, but what ties the counterarguement together is pointing out how the definition of copyright would be different if computer information was treated freely (as in speech). If Copyright were abolished, the GPL would be a moot point.
One point buried in yesterday's/. discussion thread included points about having ownership over your code to "feed your family", the idea being that there is a need earn money, lest the entire Open Source community (and their kids) will end up starving itself.
This, in my unpopular opinion, is a fallacy that keeps the rich on top, and the worker bees content with their lots in life. You work to be able to afford to put food on the table, true. But what if there was a national or global shift that removed the economic ideology from food distribution in a way that provided people the opportunity to go to the foodmarket and take what they need? This is an oversimplified example, but it drives at the overall point - remove corporate ownership rights universally and so long as the system keeps its pace, you can continue to feed your family without greedily hoarding your source code.
The key (of course) isn't freedom for consumption, but rather the opposite. Make production free, and the rest begins to fall into place.
only consume free items. Consumerism is culture. Culture is one of the qualities that makes modern life possible. There is a prerequisite to consuming though... and it is production.
The paradigm shift isn't "only consume free items", but rather "only produce free items". When production is free, culture will fluish and standards of living will rise.
Now, let's face it, digital media is a special case where production truly *is* free (hence, the stealbots downloading their precious copies of Spiderman-3, later this afternoon).
When you can convince traditional businesses and their "shareholders" that they will be better off if they "only produce free items", I would tip my hat to you... because let's face it, the world needs United Technologies, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, and Proctor & Gamble.
Some licenses such as the GPL/GFDL explicitly prohibit such a 3rd party revokation of licensing, after the content has been granted, but I think this may be one of the weaknesses of the Creative Commons license suite. Creative Commons licenses work like the GPL...
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_chan ge_my_mind.3F
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
The checks from the government are an equalizer. As is the graduated income tax. As is the substanstial college debt because my parents are wealthy enough so I can't get much need based aid, but not so wealthy that they can afford to pay a dime. As is the anticipated failure of the social security system when it is my retirement time.
Maybe you are older and things were different for you, but times have changed and $$$ doesn't go as far as it used to. Also, bare in mind undeserving individuals who can pull in $300,000 or more per year.
I recognize that globally everyone in the US is extremely lucky. But the widening economic inequality gap in this country isn't inspiring, and my claim is that the middle class is fooling themselves when they believe that they are better than the poor.
Also, happiness, not money, is what is truly important. But money remains a fact of life.
What about the other side of the spectrum? Would you support nobody being able to get a 3.5 without Language and Writing Skills?
What about somebody who chooses to take a Literature course where thought provoking reading and analysis is needed? The type of class where there are 200 pages of reading assigned every week? Would that be valued as highly as AP Calculus?
In my experience in high school, the students who took the the hard Literature classes would almost universally be in the hard Math classes, but not the other way around. There were ~10 AP Literature students compared to ~20 in AP Calculus.
Two years after graduating college, I find the Literature more enriching.
I give Verizon $35 a month for my cell phone. I give Nissan $237 a month for my Sentra (MSRP: $13,000) plus Geico $180 a month for insurance. I live at home (still with parents) and don't pay rent... which also gets me free cable and internet (though living by myself I think I could do without either of these). The rest of my income goes to taxes ($700 a month), savings ($20k in last 30 months), college loan payments ($1,000 to 1,500 a month), food, and buying disposable crap I don't need.
Perhaps your mortgage is a bit more of a stretch that it should be. At one point the "savings" listed above was a down-payment for a mortgage, but not anymore. Over the last 30 years, interest rates have dropped by more than half while house prices have steadily increased by 12% per year (the interest rates have been a major factor that has driven prices up - but they can't go much further down). The 12% appreciation rate IS NOT SUSTAINABLE and poses a huge risk for anybody who gets a mortgage right now instead of rent+save. An average house (not condo - though that is the direction the market is headed) in my area would be $400,000. If I bought that with the expectation of 12% annual appreciation, why don't you calcuate how much I would errantly be expecting to be able to sell it for in 30 years. Also, calculate how much somebody's annual income would have to be in order to afford to buy 30 years down the road. Now, realize that wages aren't matching the pace of housing and affordability is a REAL problem... and I haven't really gone through an estimated a realistic x% appreciation rate for real estate in the next 30 years, but I expect it to be around 6 or 7%... which makes for a terrible investment (especially when half that money is being flushed down the toilet paying mortgage interest).
Even in the Linux world that means not using binary drivers.
You mean, "not using drivers whose sources are unavailable for review or update". I'm pretty sure if you replaced usb.a* with usb.cpp in your system, you USB Devices would stop working.
* Or whatever the compiled binary for USB support is.
We're seeing a coming depression that is unique in that it will only affect the middle class.
Is there really a low, middle, and high? Are you just so blind or proud to admit to being part of the low? Hell, I make nearly $65k and proudly realize that I am not so much better than those making less than half that.
The classes are low and high in this glorious 21st Century.
No, don't try to convert them to Linux (unless they ask you to) but go help them when their computers fail.
Help them? With issues that are essecially caused by the OS? You must be joking. A computer manufacturer in the modern age that took 20 years to figure out, "don't let users run with Root/Administrator access" needs to be shutdown.
Kudos on your points about Firefox and OpenOffice, though. And it should be noted that it has taken a long time but OpenOffice is finally a serious Office replacement. In 2005, the Presentation software was crap and the Word Processor would crash the application when I forgot and simply "right-clicked" a misspelled word (Fedore Core 3, 1.33 GHz, 512 MB). Not anymore. These days I would much rather use OO than Office. Hoorah!
It could be that the author is just stupid. When you see a weird bug that interupts your usage of some kind of device, let us know so we can call you dumb.
A user doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know the computer is behaving badly, in a consistant way, and he is reporting the bug. Turning to/. may be overkill, but we are geeks and this will ensure the bug filters to Toshiba or Apple or Microsoft or whoever else you thought might be to blame (you suggested Anti-Virus software).
Now, I saw one or two posts describing reproducibility on slightly different configurations, but nobody who has said that this user report checks out. That's how software gets fixed. Observe the problem, and determine the conditions where the problem exists by reproducing it.
And as far as your gripe about no technical report being given (memory dump, etc...) -- it is a bug that kills the system... give the guy a break. And stand down next time you want to think that there is a problem because of a "dumb user", because the real problem in this situation is that of a "dumb teacher".
I actually LIKE competition, because it means that Apple and their developers actually have to work to make better products. Apple isn't the only game in town. I've never used the product, but all you need to give it a try is a PC a some minor expertise on installing the software. No messy licenses (seriously, Avid and Final Cut cost how much?!?). No worry of DRM BSOD (shame, Toshiba).
Re: #4 Do not tune to new RIAA music on the radio so you can avoid being tempted to buy new product from RIAA
The RIAA gets no benefit from me tuning to a station that plays their music. Back when they weren't so evil, lots of good artists released music through them and I live that blend of classic rock.
I think what you mean is "Do not request that your radio station of choice plays music from an RIAA band".
===
As an aside... I have Sirius and generally tune to Alt Nation - though lately have taken an interest in Left of Center which plays lots of bands who are probably unsigned (though the DJs don't make specific mention about that information).
Are you suggesting the Tolkien's world was a metaphor for the balance of power among the major studios? Yes, it costs a lot to make much of the content that is consumed... but not so much that Jon, Lorne, and a host of other writers/creators couldn't produce it themselves without the greedy hands of Fox and Viacom to gobble the profits.
Slashdot Mirror
The result would be that I would beat you up and steal your car laser.
If I went to a wedding party and everybody broke out into a DDR style dance I think I'd die laughing.
Let's hope Dancing Tabs don't go mainstream, so that I can keep living.
1. How do you round up voters when the majority don't care and refuse to see things from the perspective that we have?
2. On the other hand... the hell with copyright infringement. There are a plethora of sources that offer free (as in liberty) content. Let them pass these laws and punish those who would rather listen/watch/use the illegal "proprietary" bits.
3. On yet a third hand, as somebody pointed out earlier... this is a proposal in Congress that a couple of right-wing nut jobs (Lamar Smith & Gonzalez) are in favor of... but I don't believe a large enough portion of Congress would even care to bring this type of thing to vote.
If you really think the country needs reforming, need to change (1). If digital protection is the root of the problem, you can personally move towards adopting (2). If this bill is the problem, write your Congressperson and make sure he knows how to vote about (3).
I have a question about downloading TV shows from iTunes. Are you entitled to delete and redownload, or are you forced to be the custodian of the content you download? In other words, if your computer crashes, can you get it all back?
Also, how easy would downloading from iTunes and burning the content to DVD and then sticking it in a CD wallet with an appropriate Sharpie labeled identification? Does Digital Rights Management step in to prevent this, or would I need software that can circumvent DRM?
Progress doesn't depend on the foolish. It depends on the unreasonable men and women who refuse to take things at face value and mindless act a certain way "that's the way they've alway been done".
The correct version of your quotation is attributed to George Bernard Shaw. http://knowprose.com/node/12260 It is famous enough, that misquoting it makes *you* look like a fool.
So Farenheit 451 wouldn't be good, either?
There is a major problem with taxing energy use, as opposed to income. With income tax, we draw a line in the sand and say "it you earn less than $x, you pay y% less" (Everybody who makes more than $x, in the current US tax system, pays in the range of 25-30%). I suppose you could institute a "progressive tax" on energy usage, but if you really wanted to fund the government it would have to be really, really high. Prohibitively high. So high, that the people who can afford to pay it would curb their energy usage (which is what you want), but the taxes feeding the programs that the country needs to operate would be in trouble. The only chance of collecting for absurbly high energy usage would be from warehouses and office buildings... which already turn over significant portions of revenue to the tax system.
To put teeth to the argument, though, you would propose something similar to the following:
I don't pay a monthly energy bill, and when I did I didn't pay much attention to utilization, so these numbers may be off by several orders of magnitude... though the point was highlighting my belief that to make it work, you'd have to make it insane for somebody to let their usage enter into the upper brackets.
That's funny... I thought Prius was supposed to get around 50 MPG. I have a Sentra, and based on Odometer readings and fueling... I consistantly get 30 MPG. When I bought it new in 2004, it claimed 33-35 range.
I also don't tailgate, though not because I care about fuel consumption. Instead, I do it because I'm not an asshole. If it takes a fuel gauge for you act respectfully towards your fellow drivers on the road, power to the gauge.
An internet browser, or send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to... EoL PO Box 231 Scenectady NY 12345 with a request for the species that you are interested in. Please allow 6-8 weeks for processing and delivering while the Internet pages are processed for you.
kfogel, I enjoyed you essay... and thought you made some excellent points.
Feel free to browse some of my posts, as I enjoy discourse on this topic.
it is not necessarily good that an author be able control the distribution and use of their work.Good point, but how do you deal with the dual-edged sword of an author who produces his work in exchange for the opportunity to earn a living? This type of author has a notion that he needs to control his work, or else it is no good for him.
I think the root of the issue is in the misconception of work=>paycheck=>survive. With the enormous gains in production from the progress of the 20th Century, I argue that survival of billions can be accomplished by production from millions... or by a very slight production from everybody. This arguement usually gets dismissed as communist or wishful-thinking... though the root of communism and Open Source are both one-and-the-same, COMMUNITY. The value of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.
The other root of the problem is that the production of goods and services is, by and large, controlled by organizations that need their ownership rights of control to perpetuate their own relevance... so when you say "it is not good that the author control" you are indirectly including "authors" like Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, IBM, and Google. These "authors" aren't about to let you (or the legislature) tell them that they don't own the code they produce (unless it serves their own internally motivated needs).
Does that make sense? If you can answer those points (and realize that I agree with you), then there would be significantly more worth to the "abolishionist" movement.
Good questions...
Ownership vs. credit, were part of the focus of the article. Authors, I believe, care more about credit than ownership. I personally care mainly about credit. Ownership is a byproduct of the economy, but read on to see if my personal situation can shine some light on your curiosity...
===
Last summer I drove across country with a video camera and produced the trip into a series of chapters that were authored into a DVD that I gave to friends and family. I also posted this to Google Video and explicitly slapped a by-sa/2.5 Creative Commons into each of the credit reels. The production is better than typical family movies, though by no means professional. I did make it a point to add music to the soundtrack that was covered by similar licenses.
Do I expect anybody to care that my work was released the way it was? No. Do I expect to draw any financial benefit from the work I did? Also, no. It was a labor of love. And I still watch the movies from time to time, because they are awesome (for me). And twenty years from now, I'll still watch them. Additionally, I'm glad to have given 2,500 people the opportunity to see a full video depicting the eruption of Old Faithful (by far, my most popular movie... though in my opinion, not the best).
On the other hand, I also write. I've written a good 80% of a novel, and I admit that I am truly conflicted about selling it. I *want* to quit my day job so I can concentrate of writing fulltime. On the other hand, I don't want to turn over my rights to a publishing company (which is what one does, when they get published). I truly want my work to be available, though in order to mobilize myself to a position to lose the day job, giving it away isn't feasible.
That is why I favor free (as in speech) software, but also free (as in beer) tangible goods.
You don't need to point out the definition of what I've described. I'm well aware, and equally aware of the issue of greed.
/. post.
Thanks for not outright flaming, which many are prone to do when the mention of something so controversion is mentioned.
And like I said, the example was oversimplified. The less simplified explanation would discuss things like greed and the human nature of taking advantage of a free ride, when one is available... but that would take more time to write than a simple
Bulmash had some interesting points, but what ties the counterarguement together is pointing out how the definition of copyright would be different if computer information was treated freely (as in speech). If Copyright were abolished, the GPL would be a moot point. One point buried in yesterday's /. discussion thread included points about having ownership over your code to "feed your family", the idea being that there is a need earn money, lest the entire Open Source community (and their kids) will end up starving itself.
This, in my unpopular opinion, is a fallacy that keeps the rich on top, and the worker bees content with their lots in life. You work to be able to afford to put food on the table, true. But what if there was a national or global shift that removed the economic ideology from food distribution in a way that provided people the opportunity to go to the foodmarket and take what they need? This is an oversimplified example, but it drives at the overall point - remove corporate ownership rights universally and so long as the system keeps its pace, you can continue to feed your family without greedily hoarding your source code.
The key (of course) isn't freedom for consumption, but rather the opposite. Make production free, and the rest begins to fall into place.
The paradigm shift isn't "only consume free items", but rather "only produce free items". When production is free, culture will fluish and standards of living will rise.
Now, let's face it, digital media is a special case where production truly *is* free (hence, the stealbots downloading their precious copies of Spiderman-3, later this afternoon).
When you can convince traditional businesses and their "shareholders" that they will be better off if they "only produce free items", I would tip my hat to you... because let's face it, the world needs United Technologies, AT&T, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, and Proctor & Gamble.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_cha
The checks from the government are an equalizer. As is the graduated income tax. As is the substanstial college debt because my parents are wealthy enough so I can't get much need based aid, but not so wealthy that they can afford to pay a dime. As is the anticipated failure of the social security system when it is my retirement time.
Maybe you are older and things were different for you, but times have changed and $$$ doesn't go as far as it used to. Also, bare in mind undeserving individuals who can pull in $300,000 or more per year.
I recognize that globally everyone in the US is extremely lucky. But the widening economic inequality gap in this country isn't inspiring, and my claim is that the middle class is fooling themselves when they believe that they are better than the poor.
Also, happiness, not money, is what is truly important. But money remains a fact of life.
Now, what are your problems?
What about the other side of the spectrum? Would you support nobody being able to get a 3.5 without Language and Writing Skills?
What about somebody who chooses to take a Literature course where thought provoking reading and analysis is needed? The type of class where there are 200 pages of reading assigned every week? Would that be valued as highly as AP Calculus?
In my experience in high school, the students who took the the hard Literature classes would almost universally be in the hard Math classes, but not the other way around. There were ~10 AP Literature students compared to ~20 in AP Calculus.
Two years after graduating college, I find the Literature more enriching.
You mean, "not using drivers whose sources are unavailable for review or update". I'm pretty sure if you replaced usb.a* with usb.cpp in your system, you USB Devices would stop working.
* Or whatever the compiled binary for USB support is.
Is there really a low, middle, and high? Are you just so blind or proud to admit to being part of the low? Hell, I make nearly $65k and proudly realize that I am not so much better than those making less than half that.
The classes are low and high in this glorious 21st Century.
Help them? With issues that are essecially caused by the OS? You must be joking. A computer manufacturer in the modern age that took 20 years to figure out, "don't let users run with Root/Administrator access" needs to be shutdown.
Kudos on your points about Firefox and OpenOffice, though. And it should be noted that it has taken a long time but OpenOffice is finally a serious Office replacement. In 2005, the Presentation software was crap and the Word Processor would crash the application when I forgot and simply "right-clicked" a misspelled word (Fedore Core 3, 1.33 GHz, 512 MB). Not anymore. These days I would much rather use OO than Office. Hoorah!
A user doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know the computer is behaving badly, in a consistant way, and he is reporting the bug. Turning to
Now, I saw one or two posts describing reproducibility on slightly different configurations, but nobody who has said that this user report checks out. That's how software gets fixed. Observe the problem, and determine the conditions where the problem exists by reproducing it.
And as far as your gripe about no technical report being given (memory dump, etc...) -- it is a bug that kills the system... give the guy a break. And stand down next time you want to think that there is a problem because of a "dumb user", because the real problem in this situation is that of a "dumb teacher".
Happy Free (as in speech) Editting!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra
Re: #4 Do not tune to new RIAA music on the radio so you can avoid being tempted to buy new product from RIAA The RIAA gets no benefit from me tuning to a station that plays their music. Back when they weren't so evil, lots of good artists released music through them and I live that blend of classic rock. I think what you mean is "Do not request that your radio station of choice plays music from an RIAA band". === As an aside... I have Sirius and generally tune to Alt Nation - though lately have taken an interest in Left of Center which plays lots of bands who are probably unsigned (though the DJs don't make specific mention about that information).
Are you suggesting the Tolkien's world was a metaphor for the balance of power among the major studios? Yes, it costs a lot to make much of the content that is consumed... but not so much that Jon, Lorne, and a host of other writers/creators couldn't produce it themselves without the greedy hands of Fox and Viacom to gobble the profits.