[Ti] [OT} All this 'anti-piracy' stuff

[b]

Michael Bigley paused, thought it over, and spoke thusly:

>  Am I stealing music if I paid for a cassette, 8-track, LP or 45 (or 
>maybe even a 78!!) of that song or album?

No you are not, you are simply acquiring something that exists, with 
the permission of its 'possessor'. However, due to the nature of 
recording contracts, none of the purchase price is finding its way 
back to the Artist, or their estate. Which serves to deflate the red 
herring of 'denying the struggling artist their due', which the 
companies also trot out in their offensive 'defense.

Two wrongs do not make a right. i learned this as a child, and like 
to think we all did. I have also bought tens of thousands of dollars 
worth of music and software, on 'spec', only to find much of it 
lacking in value to me. So, why should i blindly continue this 
'wrongful', hurtful [to me] behavior, when it is possible to evaluate 
before a purchase?

If all commerce was transacted in the same manner, we would never see 
groceries, or their fitness to be consumed, wed buy all clothes based 
on written description, or some toadies assurance 'well love it', and 
cars would be delivered,paid for, up front, whether running properly 
or not, AND we wouldn't be able to let the wife drive the car, share 
the food with the kids, etc. However, due to poorly thought out 
extensions of copyright, and the larger agenda on the part of the 
powers that be, the record industry, is given a 'pass' from the 
normal rules of doing fair business.

I cannot speak for those outside America, but here, in that part of 
the US where we take the Constitution seriously, it is our duty to 
disobey the 'convention' of the latest law, when it is morally wrong 
to obey blindly. Not a 'right', a duty. One further note: The 
Constitution has been misrepresented, and frighteningly so. It is NOT 
about granting limited, specified 'rights', it IS all about limiting 
the Power of government. All so-called 'inalienable rights' where not 
specifically forbidden, are assumed to exist, and be respected, 
requiring neither 'majority opinion', nor legislation. laws are 
changed when they are shown to abrogate the spirit of the 
Constitution. All well and good, as long as the separation of powers 
is in place.  But where collusion exists between the 9th circuit, the 
Supreme Court, regulators in the bureaucratic Gov't, the 
bought-and-paid-for-Congress, and Industry, well, the table is set 
for civil disobedience.

Art has survived and at times, thrived, for thousands of years 
without Disney, AOL, and Sony. It is silly, and terribly 
cultural-centric to assume/fear otherwise.

~flipper