Universal Sends DMCA Takedown On 1980 Report 189
An anonymous reader writes "For many, many years, every time some new technology has come along, the music industry has insisted that it's going to "kill" the industry. The player piano was supposed to kill live music. So was the radio. And, of course, every time this happens the press is willing to take the industry's word at face value. In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done. Someone posted that 20/20 episode to YouTube a few years back, where it sat in obscurity until people noticed it a couple weeks ago. And suddenly, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for the show. Universal Music does not own 20/20, and there were only brief clips of music in the show. It appears the only reason for Universal to issue the takedown is that it doesn't want you seeing how badly it overreacted in the past."
Or maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
...there's no "cover up" here at all, and the big media companies send takedown notices to just about every video on YouTube.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The script for the cease-and-desist letter is part of the submit button
Re: (Score:2)
Know why they call it a "submit" button? Because it cc'd the recording industry.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They had to do this, as it was totally killing DVD sales of the report.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Lenz v. Universal (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe sending take down notices to ALL videos on youtube is just a way to cover up the ones they REALLY want to take down.
That wouldn't be the best strategy for Universal Music. It has previously been hit with a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org], in which Judge Fogel held that OCILLA requires a copyright owner to make a fair use analysis in good faith before submitting a notice and that Universal may not have made such an analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then whoever wrote that DMCA claim is guilty of perjury, or else it isn't a valid (properly written) claim.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except rick astley's stuff.
Seriously, media companies are very interested in web trend so it's likely they noticed the video when it got popular. Since they also sue people for unreasonable amount of money I think they are perfectly capable of using DMCA takedown to avoid eggs in the face.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to poorly execute a meta-joke. (Score:5, Funny)
the Streisand effect
Well, that's just great. If you hadn't said anything, this phenomenon could have remained in relative obscurity. However, because you brought it up, now everyone's gonna know about the Streisand effect. Way to go.
Re:Time to poorly execute a meta-joke. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only it won't work. I just learned about the Streisand effect from the recent article about officer Bubble, and I already have a situation in which to apply it. That's convenient.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too, except I now think that the Streisand effect is not that effective.
If you say "the recording industry doesn't want you to see this this video" or "Officer bubbles will arrest you for assaulting him with a viewing of this video", then there are a certain type of people who will seek out the video. These people are probably the type who like to form opinions for themselves, and are probably also the type who don't mindlessly follow the authority claimed by big business or
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My interesting idea is to go ahead and share music, never paying a cent until the music industry is very actually teats up.
Musicians will once again be able to make a living playing music. Give it away and charge for performance. It really is the only realistic way for music to even work. Give it away and charge for performance. Music will thrive with actual musicians rather than office flunkies controlling it.
Yes, kill the industry completely f**king dead. We don't need them, never have, and would've ALWAY
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
The video that was DMCA'd down was the 2nd half of a 20/20 news segment about the issues befalling the music industry back in the 1980s.
There's enough time between the "failure of the music industry's disdain for the player piano and the radio" as to make points on both sides moot.
But, a DMCA notice to take down something that occurred in the 80s which pinpoints the exact same reasoning we have today for the alleged destruction of the music industry is telling. This segment wasn't even owned by the music industry, it was owned by 20/20 the news magazine. The content within clearly falls within the fair use doctrine, which, should be considered the default rather than the exception--meaning we should make them prove that it isn't fair use before they can prevail with a DMCA or in court, rather than the way it is now where fair use has to prove itself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."
I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.
This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.
RTA?
The video posted in the article is the 'first half' of the 20/20 piece. The second half was no longer available when the author went to view it a second time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
so far so good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I assume 2020 Report on music video 1980 - Part 2 of 2 [youtube.com] must be what they wanted to take down.
Re: (Score:2)
++good (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:++good (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't that be good+1? Like a counter...
no, ++good increments the value of good, _before_ you miss the joke
Re: (Score:2)
People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Interesting)
I noticed a bunch of home-filmed performances of amateur pianists playing various Mozart stuff had been taken down, because some random publishing company claimed ownership, just to plaster them with ads -- and the company gets the ad revenue.
Anybody with a brain would realize that the work is hundreds of years old, and the performance in question is owned by the poster (the guy sitting at the piano), but apparently forcing your ads onto other peoples youtube vids in this manner has become a trendy revenue stream for cocksuckers. Almost as trendy as the sucking of the cock in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Interesting)
Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.
There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.
The purpose of the monopoly ownership of these types of works of art was to encourage creativity. They were granted monopoly over these works for a limited time knowing it would be put into the public domain afterwards.
Back then the content creator's claim were that if they didn't have monopoly rights and all things went to the public domain there'd be no reason to create. So, the government, in an effort to ensure everything went to the public domain to help ensure culture survived, granted them this right, not the other way round.
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't stop them from trying to rape you with licensing fees if they think there's any connection to the sheet music. If one industry pisses me off more then the music industry, it's the sheet music industry.
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Informative)
The original compositions are in the public domain. Simplified adaptations for amateur piano are derivative works that probably are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Mozart probably scribbled alternate arrangements to his stuff on the dinner napkins.
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:5, Informative)
Well it is high time to start aggressively campaigning for an amendment to the DMCA setting out substantive penalties for false claims with significant payments to the party who were defamed and who had their constitutional rights to free speech infringed.
There has been a lot of complaints about abuses of the DMCA but as yet seemingly little action to force an amendment for false claims.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If only life were only so simple. (Score:2)
Those Mozart pieces of music are in the public domain. If someone performs a musical piece from that era that works then automatically becomes copyrighted--only that performance and not the actual work that it was based on.
The score you are using is probably not a facsimile in Mozart's own hand.
If it was, you might not be able to read it correctly.
You might not have the period instruments needed to play it correctly.
What you are more likely to have is a scholarly edition for the professional musician or a
Re: (Score:2)
It's still the work whether it was written in Hebrew or Orchish/Goblin. The copyright has expired whether we can read the original or not.
Re:People send takedown notices almost randomly (Score:4, Funny)
This sounds quite interesting. Is there a way I can randomly claim ownership of YouTube videos, and derive revenues from their viewers? Or do you have to be someone special to get in on that?
Youtube link (Score:5, Informative)
The actual program in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vz7Z42Fl9s
Re:Youtube link (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's available in The Netherlands. I don't know if it has been down here. v=E9KRtuEttIQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried mirroring it, but Youtube tells me the video is 'blocked in some countries'. Not that it would be of much interest, as there's hardly anything said about hometaping killing music.
It seems to me this video was blocked due to some automated process that recognized footage of Meatloaf or Kiss.
Mirror? (Score:2)
Is there a mirror of it? It doesn't have to be on YouTube either. :P
Hmm, this video story reminded me of Boing Boing [boingboing.net]'s mention of a two parts YouTube [youtube.com] video story (about 18.5 minutes in total; #1 (here [youtube.com], here [youtube.com], or here [youtube.com]) and #2 (here [youtube.com] or here [youtube.com]) showing "60 Minutes [cbsnews.com]" on video piracy from 1978.
Re: (Score:2)
The first part is not the part in question. It is the second part.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched that, and I saw the second part from the mirror that boarder8925 posted down below (the combined 17 minute video). There was nothing in there about taping killing the recording industry, other than a few second blurb where they listed home taping as one of 4 reasons for slumping sales. Other reasons listed were counterfeiting, availability of free music on radio, and failure of artists to deliver major records on a regular basis. The entire rest of the video is all about pinning their hopes on th
Has anything really changed? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have an indoor pool and an outdoor pool, I highly doubt you are hurting from money. If the musicians are getting enough money to afford that, just think of how much is going to the company seeing as the musician only takes a small cut of what the industry makes (that is, of course the musician gets endorsements from Nike and Wheaties and stuff).
Seriously, after mp3's and torrents have faded out and the new technology has come into play, the music industry will bitch and moan again about how they are, again, on their last leg, but then we get to see the newest episode of MTV Cribs where artists show off their new Benz and Ferraris
The more things change... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today.
And the retarded thing? Advancing technology makes them money.
Consider the 90s, which they seem to conveniently peg as their baseline for normal. Putting their cries of poverty from today and the 80s together, they've been going out of business constantly from 1985 until now, except for the mid 90s. What happened then? The CD came out. And people replaced a helluvalot of vinyl and tapes with CDs. People did that because the product was significantly superior in nearly every way (with apologies to audiophiles who love vinyl).
So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves. As a result they've made a lot less money than they could have, and have allowed a robust black market to blossom. That's bad for them, not just because of the lost revenue (let's concede they lose some money for the sake of argument), but they also lose control over distribution. This is completely different from their mistakes before.. Previously, people bootlegged tapes to make illegal tapes, but it was an inferior product to the legit copies, and probably made little dent in sales. Now, people can bootleg CDs to make digital copies, shifting media as well as creating a potentially superior product. The black market can now fill a market they've chosen not to compete in. Bad news for them.
So what's the upshot? If they want to make money like in the 90s, they need to give people a reason to re-buy music. That will be very hard since the last iteration was digital and easily turned into other media - how do you improve on that? They need some way of adding actual value to the product that people bought or shared/stole. Otherwise, the level of sales growth seen now and in the 80s is the norm, and we shouldn't expect anything different.
Re:The more things change... (Score:4, Interesting)
The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.
I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.
Yup. Less and less reason for them to exist. With cheaper production and voluntarily electing not to make digital distribution work correctly, the only thing they have left is marketing. If the indie artists e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'popular' part...maybe that's *possible*
Also, AFAIK, it's relatively easy for indies to list their own stuff on iTunes Music Store et al. (The labels get most of the $ from that, and if you are your own label, you thus get most of the $)
[plug for some stuff I like] Like http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/k-flay/id396174073 [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your rather humorous Freudian slip aside, I think this is something that is endemic to our culture.
We are so incredibly terrified of the horrific thought of someone, somewhere, might possibly getting something they don't deserve that we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort hunting them down, and for no good (econo
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't take away money from artists just like me
How else can I afford another solid gold Hum-Vee
And diamond-studded swimming pools
These things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is, "Everybody, please...""
Weird Al, Don't Download This Song. Great parody of overreaction from RIAA and anti-P2P artists (other lyrics sarcastically reference Lars Ulrich). [I suggest MC Lars' "Download This Song" for a somewhat more serious musical take on the matter]
Nevertheless, I still like some of the products themselves, so I s
Go and download it (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to keepvid.com and download [youtube.com] a copy of that video. If YouTube does take it down, we can always post it again (on another note, I can't seem to find part 2).
The Internet Never Forgets.
Also, Universal Music are douchebags, but what's new? The douchebaggery and the lies are so obvious that it's not even worth going into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Universal Music are douchebags
Say I'm a recording artist, and I want to vote with my dollars against Universal Music, but I don't want my audience limited to just geeks with smartphones. What label with FM radio clout that isn't evil do you recommend?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The E in EMI (Score:2)
Distribution,Epitaph,another suggestion (Score:2)
A distribution deal seems like it would be less of a screwjob than a 360 or even a standard recording contract. Since a major problem with the major record labels is shitty contracts, this problem is thus alleviated.
Another suggestion, perhaps: SideOneDummy (speaking of which, FM in a music sense could also stand for Flogging Molly, one of the biggest names on the aforementioned label.
Re: (Score:2)
Independent radio stations?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty obvious (Score:2)
The music industry, like the musicians who make it up, are a bunch of lazy douchebags who wish to get paid for plunking some strings and getting all funky and such, but mostly sitting on their collective asses doing next to nothing until time to record some new caterwauling. I used to want to be in a band and wish to get paid for nothing, then I grew up and got a real job. Let's be frank; you're batshit lucky if you every got paid to make music. For every good band, there are a million shitty ones all tr
Penalty for frivolous takedown notice? (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
... the Carriers Of Milk In Cities (COMIC) today lashed out at refrigerator manufacturers and cardboard container manufacturers for "killing the milk industry".
Ferb Nordquist, the head of COMIC said in a statement that was hand carried to every major news outlet, "We, the milk carriers, bring milk to the masses. Without us, there would be no milk. The refrigerator and cardboard manufacturers are putting a stake in the heart of the milk industry. This is really the beginning of the end for milk."
No cows were available for comment.
Improper Takedown? (Score:5, Informative)
It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.
So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?
C//
Re: (Score:2)
So what content are they saying they are a rights holder/agent of?
I'm guessing it's the music in the show, even if it's only "short clips."
There have been plenty of instances where movies are held up from home video release because of rights disputes over the music in the film. The animated film Heavy Metal could only be seen on cable TV for many years for that reason. The film Bad Lieutenant cannot be seen in its original version on DVD because a Schooly D song in the movie sampled music without licensing it. Schooly got sued and the filmmakers were forced to pull the so
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to clarify "fair use". Someone with a big baseball bat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you already know this, but to clarify for others: Even when the shows/movies DO license the music, the license was often only for the original medium. That's why many shows (e.g. WKRP, 21 Jump Street) have messed up music on the DVD releases.
My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite counter-example: The last episode of "The Prisoner", which has a Beatles song in it. At the time, they got a perpetual license, that has AFAIK covered home video, DVD, streaming, etc., usage too.
British dramas seem to have benefited from a lot more leniency in this area. The theme song to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is an old Eagles song, for example, and I've seen "real" pop music showing up in all kinds of shows. I've always wondered whether their copyright laws/licenses are worded differently than those in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is perjury (a criminal act) to issue a DMCA takedown request when the requester is not the rights holder or their designated agent.
No. It's perjury if you respond to the request by saying falsely that you have the right to distribute it, but it's not perjury to issue a DMCA takedown request under false pretenses. The law was written this way for a reason. (Probably a few million reasons, on small pieces of paper.)
(IANAL, of course.)
Re:Improper Takedown? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.
That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:
US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):
(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.
Re: (Score:2)
To knowingly do so. How do you prove that they knew it was fraudulent?
Re: (Score:2)
that would cover them if, for example, Major band X ripped off Indie band Y, then Major Label Z sent a takedown to indie band Y because they own the rights to major ban X's music, but X actually stole Y's song.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws only apply to the poor.
Honestly, are you new to this country? the MPAA and RIAA as well as other rich groups regularly violate laws daily without recourse. This is how America works.
Laws are for putting the trouble making poor in Jail. They have no other use.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's perjury to to issue a takedown request if you don't own copyright on the work you're alleging is being infringed, not on anything related to the allegedly infringing material.
In this case, it would only be perjury if they didn't own copyright on the songs.
They can legally issue a takedown notice for any arbitrary work they hold copyright on, regardless of whether that work appears in any form in the work they're wanting taken down.
Starting to see why the DMCA is a really insane law?
Re: (Score:2)
Universal has way more lawyers than any single person that uploads stuff to Youtube. So even if someone were to point out that the DMCA request was illegal, Universal could just sue that someone and keep them tied up in courts for a decade. The way I see it, that makes them think they can do whatever they please with zero repercussions if they happen to be wrong.
More damning than that (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently came across an old copy of Modern Recording magazine from early 1981. There is an article about how cassette decks are evil and home taping is hurting the record industry and the RIAA commissioned a study that that they hoped to take to congress as proof that new laws were need.
But a funny thing happened. The report was shelved when it revealed that people who owned home recording equipment spent 75% more money buying music than people who didn't own an evil cassette deck.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense. What good is a cassette deck if not to make copies of music for your friends?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I've bought stuff (whether CDs or legal downloads) in part so that I could copy it for others. :)
If only we had Video and Youtube in 1910 (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you'd see first hand from the late Mortimer I. Luddite III with his frantic pleas to stop those infernal horseless carriages from destroying his buggy-whip business he made just days before being struck down and killed by a Model T going a whopping 10 miles an hour through the town square.
Innovation and progress is only good so long as the established powers that be profit by it.
hmm (Score:2)
Live music used to be all around; families and friends would gather in the living room and listen; saloons and restaurants would have pianists in the corner. After the player piano, hardly anyplace has that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your joking, right? Ever hear of this thing called Radio?
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Radio is canned music. You cant ask the radio disc jockey to change the key, because you are a baritone instead of a tenor.
That is what OP meant by "Live" music. That it is played live, by a living person, for you, in real time. And yes, the player piano did a grand job of putting corner store pianists out of business. By the same token, the tractor put many farm hands out of business. Technology does that. It reduces the amount of labor invested, and makes things easier; the downside is that it also puts people out of work in the process-- the people that did the jobs the technology replaced. Computers put whole accounting firms under, or at least resulted in huge reductions in the numbers of humans working for those firms.
The tired "Buggy whip" trope used on /. is very apt here.
Technolgoy Upgrades (Score:2)
And (some) of those people left unemployed by new technology find something else productive to do, that other stuff amounting to the true bonus of the new technology. (Well, that and there are some jobs related to the new technology itself)
Re: (Score:2)
The little musicians in my radio suck lately. They have lost all talent and play the same crap over and over and over...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suggest this 3 part plan: 1. Buy a new radio.
2. Drop old radio into a lake or river while the new radio watches.
3. Explain to the new radio that if it's musicians lose all talent and play the same crap over and over the same thing will happen to it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
Download and mirror!
The Musicians (Score:2)
The advent of the microphone and the radio really did murder the music industry. There was a time when the first item you saw when entering just about any store was sheet music. That was a dead industry due to the microphone and radio. Then the family bands vanished which limited the renewal of new musicians entering the field. The orchestra pits in theaters vanished when the film industry figured out how to record sound on film. Large dance and night club bands became a thing of the past due to the m
I wonder how 20/20 is taking this (Score:4, Insightful)
As they say, hindsight is ... *gets shot*
(Okay, the recording industry could be right... they claimed back then that "something MUST be done", but they never claimed that something "is NOT currently being done". After all, thirty years later, we now have all these stupid copyright laws...)
The REAL reason for the takedown... (Score:4, Funny)
...was to cover up the HORRIBLE taste in clothing of all of the record execs in 1980. Just wow.
hmmm (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously this isn't news, this is happening everyday to lots of people from lots of companies
The fact that somebody else shits my underwear while I'm not looking is interesting to me.
The fact that you keep changing your underwear and chose to not care who shits in it is is, indeed, of little relevance to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Humorous analogy parse error.
Too much humor at line 3, near somebody else shits my.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have the right to see news report, and this right is as strong as the right to wear my underwear clean.
I consider the takedown notice from Universal (who is not the owner of the copyright) as breaching my right and very similar with shitting my underwear while I'm not looking. Therefore, the post on
Clearer now why I consider this fragment of news worthy to be posted on /., in disagreement with the OP?
Re: (Score:2)
crystal.
I get it, but your chosen analogy was too awesome.
see also: mad props.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, but your chosen analogy was too awesome.
Thank you for the compliment, but it is not me to take the merit for the analogy. The OP made it, by commoditizing her/his rights and selling them cheap for the potential bit of excitement brought in by fresh news.
I think that what OP fails to understand is that, unlike underwear, one doesn't have enough rights to trade them cheap and, when one loses a right, is not as easy to regain it as it is to wash the underwear.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This would make more sense if you put the missing N back on the end of your username.
Re: (Score:2)
(I admit my current post as being irrelevant/redundant as well, but FYI the second char of my nick is a 'zero').
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. Techdirt.com is a long standing news entity which critiques the dirt of our digital industry.
Re: (Score:2)
No warning here either, never have gotten one in the last 2 years, nor do i expect to from them any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.musicforte.com/ [musicforte.com]
Don't know how exactly they make money.