My Declaration of Independence from the RIAA

by Steve Mallett

Related link: http://silicon.com/news/500022-500001/1/5942.html



"Barely 24 hours after suing alleged file swappers around the United States, the recording industry has settled its first, agreeing to drop its case against a 12-year-old New York girl in exchange for $2,000."

My Declaration of Independence from the RIAA

Dear RIAA,

I wouldn't buy another CD from you if you had the last CD on earth.

I hereby swear, on any and everything holy, that I will never, ever buy another CD, not one mp3, not a attend a concert, not buy one piece of merchandise that might ever put a lousy penny, not one red cent in your grubby, dirty, foul smelling hands.

I also swear that I will, by all means within my power, go out of my way to make sure that no one I ever encounter gives you any opportunity to make money from them. I will patiently explain at every opportunity to anyone who will listen what pathetic dinosaurs you are, how you threaten children downloading If You're Happy and You Know it, and how willing you are stoop so low for money, not principle.

You couldn't make a product that I would ever consider buying again, or allow people I know to buy. I will go out of my way to support any band, no matter how awful they might be or out of a genre of music I don't care for, that won't have anything to do with you.

I hope your legally-perverted, falsely propped-up business model dies like so many dinosaurs before you.

Steve Mallett

P.S. Emmett Plant is taking up a collection to pick up the two grand settlement Brianna and her Mom are stuck with after settling with the RIAA. That's the last $20 the RIAA will get outta me.

Care to sign your name?


45 Comments

anonymous2
2003-09-10 13:54:19
Wonderful!
I agree 100%, and have embarked on an identical plan... but the really sad thing is: we're not missing out on anything.


As far as I can tell, there simply isn't any good music coming out anyway, at least not from those channels. It's all the same one hit wonder pablum anyway.

anonymous2
2003-09-10 14:28:50
RIAA makes this pledge easy for me
God they are stupid. REALLY STUPID. I mean I'm no genius myself but if anyone can think of as many different ways to shoot themself in the foot its the RIAA. Everytime I want to buy a CD and support a band or singer I like, I see one these articles and I decide against buying the CD. Out of protest. Sad.
anonymous2
2003-09-10 15:06:48
Dear RIAA and recording artists
I will buy only used CDs from now on. I will attend live shows of my favorite artists because that is thier best opportunity to make money. If the artists would setup an easy donation feature on their personal, not label-owned, website, I would gladly donate a buck or two per CD that I buy used.


I get the music I like and the artist gets real money all for less than the price of a new CD.


Artists, are you making a buck or two of of every CD that you sell?


I will consider purchasing by track but would like bulk prices so that my .99 cents per track leaves room for direct artist donation.


If the labels won't pay the artists, I will.


anonymous2
2003-09-10 15:09:26
Also direct this to retailers
Send the message to the channel. Amazon and other used CD sellers make money either way but when the new CD channel starts complaing to the RIAA and the record companies, they will listen.


We need specific email addresses.

anonymous2
2003-09-10 16:37:59
Really?
I've stolen music, but never felt good about it and since the ITMS, I've purchased all the music I can find to replace the music I've stolen. I've been deleting the stolen music from my collection when I have time.


The RIAA is a crappy organization, but stolen music is stolen music, just like a stolen candy bar is a stolen candy bar. If you're 12 years old and you stela and get caught, the police are called and you probsbly get "scared straight" by the police. That's what's happened here, but the parents now know about it and will make sure it doesn't happen again.


Let the artist deal with the RIAA and how crappy the pay is per album. And re: any good music out, you're just not looking. Commercial radio is crap and really has nothing to offer and that's why you think they're nothing good. You just have to look.

anonymous2
2003-09-10 16:45:47
Really?
Dude, they shook the 12 yr old girl down for $2,000 over If You're Happy and You Know It.


She wasn't selling copies of P. Diddy's schlock.


-Steve Mallett

anonymous2
2003-09-10 16:54:21
Really?
Dude -
So the person singing "You're Happy..." doesn't deserve the same "protection" as P. Diddy? It's not the song, it's the theft. I'm as a guilty as she is, she just happens to be 12. And... If she steals "You're Happy..." now at 12, she'll soon start stealing P. Diddy later...


anonymous2
2003-09-10 17:00:47
Really?
Dude -


Where would someone buy If You're Happy and You Know It? Shake your head.

anonymous2
2003-09-10 17:12:03
Really?
Do you have kids? I could go to Best Buy or any other large chain that sells music right now and walk out with a CD of that song.
Stealing (anything) is a big issue and I have had a chamge of heart lately. I am a service provider for Apple and Dell and the amount of stolen music that I see come through here is terrible.
Really, I'm not perfect and I have hot music so I'm a bit hypocritical, but I no longer share it and don't steal it.
And I'll pay for CD's so my fave bands realize that they're being heard, even if they make a penny on the CD.
andy-lester
2003-09-10 19:07:58
Really?
Where do you get that she had downloaded "If You're Happy And You Know It?" That's a detail I'd not heard.
anonymous2
2003-09-10 20:56:53
Really?
I've downloaded music, but I've not stolen any. If you personally believe that making a digital copy of something is stealing, then please go ahead and make amends. But don't bandy the words "stolen music" around as if it were a given fact.
anonymous2
2003-09-11 04:44:10
Really?
It was Canada's national newspaper the GlobeandMail. Paper, I know!
jwenting
2003-09-11 04:57:54
Really?
So theft of intellectual property isn't theft?


You derived the artist (and publisher, and everyone else in the chain) of income they would have gotten had you purchased that (or some other) music.


Your arguments are the same as the ones used by software pirates
"if it can be copied it's free" -> if I leave my door open when I walk into another room, does that mean that anyone can legally walk in and steal my TV?
"if it's out on the net it's free" -> Says who? The person who put it on the net in the first place committed a crime, that makes anyone downloading it an accessory to crime which is a criminal offense in most countries.
"it's so bad it should be free" -> if it's so bad why do you insist on having it for any price? You should be looking for something better instead...
"I can't afford it but I want/need it" -> I can't afford a BMW M5, does that make it OK if I steal one?

jwenting
2003-09-11 05:00:33
Wonderful!
There's no good music coming out because it doesn't pay.
Simple fact, if releasing good music isn't worth the investment because everyone pirates it anyway they'll release bad music instead that sells the same number of copies at the same price yet is cheaper to produce.
anonymous2
2003-09-11 05:09:44
Interesting TidBit
Laws are an extention of the people. When the people no longer support those laws they are no longer the will of the people, non?


From the EFF's file sharing 'issue' page: "There are over 57 million Americans who use P2P file-sharing -- more than voted for President Bush" I like bushie, but that's another blog.



Steve Mallett

anonymous2
2003-09-11 05:41:15
Wonderful!
If CD sales had falled 90% in the last few years, or even 50%, or even 25% you might have a point. As it is, they've dipped so little after accounting for the economic downturn that it takes a PHD in statistics to even detect it.


Simon Hibbs

anonymous2
2003-09-11 08:43:27
Really?
Well then she allowed over a thousand downloads of it, as they only went after folks who had large amounts of downloads.
What a ridiculous spin to try and portray her as some doe-eyed victim child. 12 year old girls have sex, drink booze, do drugs, shoplift... they are not all some 'I didn't know any better' kids that it is convenient to portray. She may be, she may not be - it does not matter. She committed a crime and got caught and was fined.
How unsurprising that someone has jumped in to cash in on the situation as well - I'd be damned before 'donating' money to a criminal.
anonymous2
2003-09-11 09:42:08
Really?
"intellectual property" isn't really "property". or more precisely, intellectual property doesn't have many characteristics in common with tangible property.


with most tangible property, possession of that property denies the use of that property to others. this isn't necessarily true for intellectual property. if I download a song and you download a song, we both get to use that song, and neither one of us interferes with the other.


with most tangible property, laws of supply and demand hold - the more that demand exceeds supply, the more the property is worth. this isn't necessarily true for intellectual property either. songs are worth more when they're familiar and in wide circulation than when they're unfamiliar and obscure.


the whole idea of the term "intellectual property" is to confuse people into thinking that such "property" has the characteristics of real property. but this is merely artifice. we should stop assuming that it's in anyone's interest to treat ideas or creative work as property and instead figure out what approach would be of the greatest benefit to society and mankind.

anonymous2
2003-09-11 10:45:36
Plenty of good music
There's plenty of good new music and plenty of good old music. I listen mostly to jazz and have a way to go to complete my collection of classics. I find many used at Streetlight records or on Amazon.


I like the idea of supporting artists directly. Since manufacture and distribution are no loger necessary, the record companies are not needed. Production, recording and promotion are services that could be purcahsed at fixed cost or at percentages agreeable to the artist. Distribution is one or more uploads.

anonymous2
2003-09-11 14:42:13
Really?
You've obviously never created anything of any real value. I suspect that if you had, you'd see things differently.
anonymous2
2003-09-11 17:41:19
Oh the hypocrisy
Fact is, the 12-year old, like millions of others out there, was stealing, plain and simple. She got what was coming to her. Mr. Mallett, like many others out there, certainly wouldn't have an issue asking the police to prosecute somebody who stole, say a bicycle, yet finds it crazy that the 'evil' RIAA would attempt to prosecute those who steal from them. While I certainly disagree with their strategy, I've yet to see a better plan.


While the likely response to the above is that the logical answer is that the record companies should lower their prices. Not the case. This is a free market; you have a problem with the prices? Fine, don't buy music. Plain and simple. But don't steal it. I don't care what age you are.

anonymous2
2003-09-11 17:44:08
Interesting TidBit
And what laws are you referring to, monsieur? The laws that make it illegal to steal?
anonymous2
2003-09-11 18:14:11
Interesting TidBit
The ones that make it a crime to exercise your rights of fair use. The ones that extend copyright protections beyond what they were ever intended to. The ones that make criminals out of approx 60 million Americans.
anonymous2
2003-09-11 19:21:38
Wonderful!
Why do you assume that good music costs more to produce than bad music? If anything, I'd guess that the opposite is true. I guarantee that Nirvana cost record companies a lot less than the Backstreet Boys, for the following reasons:


1) Nirvana wrote their own songs. No expensive marketing research and outside songwriters involved.


2) Nirvana arose independently of record company involvement. It was not formed by record company marketeers, no tryouts necessary...


3) No need to hire choreographers and dancers. No need to support said dance troupe on tour.


4) Far less marketing needed. Nirvana already had grassroots support that Geffen cashed in on.


5) Production costs are far less. Far less studio musicians. Less think tanks and focus groups to determine the wants of preteen girls. Far less studio time and production.


6) No need to support a retainer of hair stylists, fashion designers, etc., to make sure that the boys have "the look." Far less money spent on hair dye and gel.


Matt

anonymous2
2003-09-11 19:22:10
Oh the hypocrisy
Yeah right! You are probably one of those s.o.b's who would close down a childs friggen lemonade stand. These "artists" you are so willing to defend, already make OBSCENE amounts of money. By the way, did your mother have any kids that lived?
anonymous2
2003-09-11 19:54:07
Stealing?
If she stole the songs, she would have sole posession of them and the artists would no longer have them to sell. That's why property law doesn't apply. Copyright law applies. The RIAA knows that but the property spin (stealing) is more familiar to most people. If property law violations didn't for good reason have more severe punishment than copyright violations, the RIAA could frame the issue in current copyright law.


Copyright violations area wrong. No one should not be downloading copyrighted music without permission (which usually means paying). Dowloading MP3s is not in itself the problem. But the RIAA would llike the legislators to believe that it is so that all downloading (any tranfer of data) is thightly regulated. THAT is wrong.


Most recording artists do not make much money. There are thousands of artists who have been in the business for decades and never received a royaly check. They just get by on the Record Company advance (crack) while hoping for the big one.


Again, it's clear that a more direct relationship between artists and their customers would solve the problem. Then the RIAA could just go away.


anonymous2
2003-09-12 08:14:12
Oh the hypocrisy
You mean the OBSCENE amounts of money that the CEOs at those Fortune 500 companies make? Yes, the same ones that run the companies that make the products you purchase daily. Or perhaps the OBSCENE amounts of money made by the sports stars? Again, yes those same starts that that you follow on a regular basis.


It's called capitalism. If you don't like the product's price, don't buy it. Your unwillingness to purchase a product for any reason doesn't give you the choice of stealing it instead.


As to your closing comment, it seems that your mother didn't have any kids that grew up. Try spending some time qualifying your argument rather than wasting everyone's time reading your pathetic insults.

anonymous2
2003-09-12 08:28:38
Interesting TidBit
Yes, I'm sure that this is what the 60 million Americans are thinking every time they _steal_ a song.
edfactor
2003-09-12 09:22:09
Bigger issue
The most important issue isn't about stealing. It's about what kind of society we live in and what cultural legacy do we leave for future generations. Even if the RIAA is correct on the "stealing" issue (and they most likely are) - they are uninterested in what's good for the society as a whole and what will increase the quality and quantity of our culture. Their actions are solely in pursuit of profit. As has been pointed out before, they are the Recording *Industry* Association of America not the Recording *Artists* Association of America.


There are more important things we should want for our society beyond a profitable music industry.

anonymous2
2003-09-12 09:25:57
Oh the hypocrisy
Unfortunately it appears that the said 12 year old's mother paid for the file sharing package. It never occired to either of them when the package popped up with a list of songs for them to download that using the software was in any way illegal, after all they'd paid for the service.


Here in the UK it's only theft if you had the _intention_ to deprive (assuming that property laws, as against copyright law, even applies), I believe the situation is the same in the US legal system.


So all this cry of "She's a thief, burn her" is sad, sad, sad indeed. If the recording companies actualy did offer a way to download music legaly, the chances are none of this would have happened.



Simon Hibbs

anonymous2
2003-09-12 16:45:25
EFF Pettition
go to
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/


to sign an anti RIAA petiton, that the EFF will take to to congress when they got 10,000. It' now up to 8,306.
They also have an email you can send your congressman at this address:
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2770

anonymous2
2003-09-14 08:52:28
o the hype

This girl wasn't trying to profit from the music she downloaded, so there was no crime.


anonymous2
2003-09-14 12:55:34
Re: Oh the hypocrisy
I think everyone is missing the point in this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA (including the artists) need to stop charging exorbitant CD prices and grossly profiting off our need to listen to music. These days, I can barely pay for a full tank of gas, much less if I were to buy a compact disc. The music industry is trying to curb "illegal" file sharing because they are unwilling to compromise with their customers (us) by lowering the price of CD's and have the artists take a pay cut.


The era of popularity and decadent spending is over. While unrelated, why is Ray Romano (everyone loves Raymond) getting paid 3 million dollars an episode? I'd be happy if I could get 1,000 dollars an episode. What message are we sending to everyone in the workforce. I work for a government contractor and I get paid a fraction of the cost.. In the long run, who matters most? I ensure that the military is properly equipped to fight terrorists and Mr. Romano attempts to ensure that the audience is somewhat amused, even though he has no skills as an actor and probably couldn't get hired for a position higher than a cashier at any business.


If illegal file sharing is necessary to bring the RIAA and artists to the reality that their lavish lifestyles will not go unnoticed, then we must continue our civil disobedience. I doubt those who watched the 60's sit-in protestors get arrested were intimidated by the extreme violence used by law enforcement. They continued to protest and challenge the injustices of their time. I extend the same to the cause of file sharers today. How do you force the record companies and artists to acknowledge that you, as the consumer, have the right to fair prices and other marketing options? You deprive of them of their profits -- by any means necesssary.


Eventually, the RIAA will overextend themselves in the prospect of "suing" it's consumers (either by countersuits or government intervention) and will finally conceed to the fact that we are not mindless masses, but intelligent consumers who want better alternatives and cheaper prices. If violating the law is what it takes, then I'll be the first one on the line.

anonymous2
2003-09-14 18:57:38
Oh the hypocrisy
ignorance of the law does not imply innocence. And the 12-year old doesn't reside in the UK, so your point is moot.
anonymous2
2003-09-14 18:59:35
o the hype
wtf are you talking about? Say I steal a candy bar, and am caught in the act. Am I absolved from the crime because I intended to eat the candy bar instead of selling it to my neighbor? Of course not.
anonymous2
2003-09-14 19:01:12
Oh the hypocrisy
"If the recording companies actualy did offer a way to download music legaly, the chances are none of this would have happened."


What planet have you been on for the past several months? Music is available for legal download, via several very well known outlets.

anonymous2
2003-09-14 19:02:45
Really?
If you've downloaded music that you did not previously purchase, YOU'VE STOLEN IT.
anonymous2
2003-09-14 19:13:35
Really?
Exactly. With all the free time Mr. Mallett has on his hands after "declaring his independence", I suggest that he invest some time in a reality check. Stealing is stealing, regardless of whether it's a piece of gum or the Titanic. I suspect that his attitude on this matter would be much different in the case that he were the author of "If You're Happy and You Know It", or of any other work currently being "traded", ahem stolen, via the Internet.


As a technical book author, I get sick to my stomach whenever I see an electronic copy posted to a Web site (I've seen several). I invest literally months of my life working on a book, only to have copies of it redistributed without my consent, nor compensatory gain? It certainly makes one reconsider investing such time and efforts in future projects...


I find it all too ironic that Mr. Mallett's employer is O'Reilly, and suspect that his attitudes on such matters would be vastly different if technical books were the central focus of P2P sharing rather than MP3s.

anonymous2
2003-09-14 19:40:17
Denver Post
The best-selling "Chicago" movie soundtrack is available on CD starting at $13.86.


The actual movie, with the soundtrack songs included, of course, plus additional goodies ranging from deleted musical numbers to the director's interview and a "making-of" feature, can be had for precisely $2.12 more.


Therein lies the problem for a critically wounded music recording industry: The "Chicago" CD looks like a rip-off, and the DVD looks like a steal.


Nearly everything the record companies have done wrong in the age of downloading has been done right by the movie studios.


America's love for movies is stronger than ever, while the nation listens to music with smoldering resentment.

anonymous2
2003-09-17 11:39:20
Oh the hypocrisy
We don't live in a capitalist society. Fixed pricing.
anonymous2
2003-10-21 09:04:56
Prioritize your targets
First, let me state that I agree with the majority in disagreeing with the RIAA's bully tactics in their desperate attempt to scare the filesharing community.


If the worst case comes to be, and the RIAA continues unchecked, then allow me to recommend that they choose their targets well. IF they are suing people (which they shouldn't be), then they should be chasing the person in his(her) basement with more music than (s)he could listen to in a year, distributing them over the OC3 connection (s)he "borrowed" from a local school or business. Not the teen with the already lightweight wallet, who just wants to hear the music before (s)he decides to invest in a CD. Not the biker who can't seem to find any ZZ Top in stores. And definitely not the child that innocently retrieves a couple songs not knowing what (s)he is getting (her)himself into.


The tactics employed by the RIAA are a mark of desperation, and indifference to their rapidly shrinking customer base. Their seemingly careless method of pursuing this action suggests that they intend to simply sue all of the filesharers. Their refusal to send cease-and-desist letters to *most* of the people they assume are sharing indicates that they are only interested in the money, not in causing anyone to stop sharing.


I'm surprised the poor PR guy hasn't committed suicide yet.

crazythoughts
2004-03-20 08:10:18
Kinda long but if you don't read it you won'd know why
Well, well, well, after reading some of the stuff here, it makes me wonder how interesting life would be if 60 million people were arrested, tried, and fined. Do you think that if 60 million people decided not to pay the fine they would arrest them. Do you think that 60 million people could fit into the prisons we have now, or would that have to start using high schools, and office buildings. Wouldn’t that be a nice headline. 60 million Americans sent to prison. What prison system short of an international collective prison type of collaboration would be able to maintain 60 million people. Wouldn’t life be interesting then. Who would pay for this, the taxpayers of course. But hey what if 60 million people decide that hey, if they can throw me in jail for not paying a fine, why should I pay taxes. Just stop. Well I didn’t feel like it. What are they going to do. Throw you into prison. Oh wait your already in prison. Hmm. That makes it interesting doesn’t it. What if they seize your assets, homes, bank accounts, everything. Where exactly are they going to put the hard assets, that aren’t liquid. In storage yards. Who pays for that. Oh yeah, the 60 million tax payers in prison who stopped paying taxes. Wouldn’t life be interesting then. And by the way, how long does it take, roughly speaking, to sentence, try, and do all the legal stuff, in order to put 60 million people in prison. How long does the court system get bogged down by the paper work of 60 million people entering the criminal arena. How interesting life would be. Go get a job a few years after your released, ask if you’ve been in prison, you can say of course weren’t you. We would be a society of criminals, why. Mainly because we disagreed with the tactics employed by a company that does everything in its power to create a profit. Now what hurts money-making companies the most. Why the lack of money. It is rather obvious I would think. Now what is a major determining factor in the prestige of a money making company. Well anybody can tell you, that prestige comes from a bunch of factors, but one sticks out in my mind. It just so happens to be the stock exchange. Well, well, well, something anybody can manipulate with the proper pressure. Take for example, 60 million people making a concerted effort to tank a specific stock. Namely one RIAA who seems to feel that there are 60 million criminals in this country. Lets say that RIAA stock starts to plummet. Well that’s not so bad because there's that whole buy low sell high and buy high sell low. I don’t even pretend to know how that stuff works but I do know that somebody has to buy what is being sold. If nobody ever buys the stock and it plummets all the way to zero what then. Does the company stop everything or does it find another way to survive. Usually it tries everything, and when a dying animal is cornered, it usually fights much fiercer. So what do they do. They propagandize. They spend lots and lots of money trying to clear their tarnish. Of if they happen to have clever lawyers they go after specific targets. Now how easy is it to pick on individual versus a mass of 60 million people. How many people have actually been charged maybe a few thousand. How long will it take just to process that many. Well if they go after specific targets, then why not turn yourself in. Hey if you pick on one why not pick on a mob. Mobs always seem to bring out the best in people for some reason, and if you happen to miss the sarcasm, I would like to point it out. So now we have effectively tanked a specific stock, big deal, we have turned ourselves in to stop the specific nitpicking of the RIAA, big deal. Do we really change anything. Let me ask another question. How many people live in the UNITED States of America. I let you think and guesstimate. Go ahead think about it. I typed in a search “united states population numbers.” Get some results and the fist one I see I click on and lo and behold they have an approximate estimate right there. Two-hundred-ninety-two million-eight hundred-thirty-seven thousand- six hundred and seventy nine. That’s an awful lot of people. And guess what a measly 60 million people is only about 20% of the population. So if it’s only 20 percent what do we do. We all go home and download one song that we do not own. Apparently they are only going after people who download more than they can listen to in a year, or based upon how many people download from you or some other such way to determine who to pick on. Well now that we are all criminals we can go turn ourselves in. I doubt all 292,837,679 people would do so for the simple fact that not everybody will read this, and not everybody has a computer to download a song from. Lets say we get a hundred and fifty million more people to download one song and turn themselves in. That is around half the population of the UNITED states of america. Well if they had trouble dealing with 60 million, and they might not for some unforeseen reason, what will another 150 million people do to their plans. Is it even possible to feed 150 million people. Do you think the government has the capability of sustaining 150 million people all by itself without any help. Oh and what if some of those people who are in the process of getting imprisoned somewhere, we find that producers are included, well who is going to grow the crops, who is going to sell the crops to the government. That creates another rather interesting dilemma for people doesn’t it. All of this just because some company thinks that they can just start suing people, legally of course. And they obviously care about the music because that is how they make money right. Well I wonder how 150 million people pay for music when almost everything is provided in prison. Granted not all prisons are the same, and the people residing over them might be a bit perturbed by the audacity of society, the masses to actually stand up against an injustice. I don’t promote stealing. But if it is just one theft for a good cause. A cause you firmly believe in. Do you think your God will forgive you for protecting those who can’t protect themselves. If they want to send a message to stop stealing their music, maybe they shouldn’t use scare tactics, mind games, and bullying. There is somebody always out there who is bigger. It may not be a country or a nation. It may be considered rebellion, or revolution, but what is the true goal of revolution and rebellion. To stop an injustice. The injustice is invariably tainted by the minds of individuals, but if enough of these rebellious and revolutionary people stand up and fight, by saying you can’t push us and expect us to just fall down and walk away. But if we fight back by saying well you picked on him now pick on somebody else, and if they pick on enough people, piss enough people off, what do you think will happen. Most people don’t like to be pushed around I would think. And if people begin to get pushed around just so a industry, namely RIAA can flex its muscles, and say that they have rights and power to exercise those rights, why not respond by taking away what they want. Take their money, don’t go out and rob or mug or hurt people physically. Hurt them in their pride, take away their power. Tank their stock. “Steal” one song and turn yourself in for prosecution. See how many people they really want to piss off. The more enemies a person makes, the harder it is for them to stay afloat for a few simple reasons. People like revenge. Especially for injustice or even a perceived injustice. And so with revenge comes a, what shall I call it. Poetic justice. Let me give a simple example. A child gets mad at his parents and decides not to talk to them. Well if the child carries on long enough the parents will start to wonder. Who knows what they think, but they do. Now apply this to millions of people not talking or doing business with a company or any of its top business, and decision makers. Well it might be hard to find a job with their faces plastered all over the place and 150 + million people mad at them. Only a small problem. Now think about not doing business with any of the lawyers who helped push this ludicrous set of lawsuits. Well lawyers are easy to come by, and with 150 + million people mad, it might be hard for them to find a job as well. And we can stop there for the most part. Don’t get violent, that only leads to trouble. Be passively aggressive. Stop doing things for them. Stop their stock from selling by not buying. Stop their money from rolling in by purchasing non affiliated companies, and I’m pretty sure that if anything remotely like this happens, quite a few of companies might disassociate themselves, as well as new business being created. Well with now no market in which to sell, and their bravado, and bullying tactics effectively squashed, they might just be out of a job. And then who wants to hire a bully unless you want a bodyguard, and who needs a corporate bodyguard, most corporation personnel making decision like this lawsuit business, are not exactly bodyguard material. Don’t just do this because I told you to. Do this because you think it’s right. Do it because you believe deep within you that something is wrong here. Don’t just follow the crowd. Follow your heart. Most people have them, but corporations seem to lack them for some reason, and feel that a little legal force will stop people. It might, if it made sense. This, trying to sue 60 million people, is a little excessive in my mind. But I’m just one man with one opinion. I do know that it’s rather easy to stop buying something like a stock. I do know that boycotts, when conducted peaceably, can be effective. But if you want to send a message as a population to companies that they can’t just start pushing 60 million people around because they are losing a profit, then shut them down entirely. Don’t allow them to come back at all. Please don’t take this to mean destruction to people and property. Take it as a peaceful yet forceful boycott that will never end. Not until the company no longer exist. Not until all its corporate offices are empty. Sure lots of employees who did nothing wrong but work for the company filing papers or doing normal tasks, but I think that their search for a job might be better than that of their employers. And if people quit before things go down, all the better. Every act of peaceful resistance helps. If they have no employees to run their business how do they continue. Maybe if there were some true emotion behind their actions besides greed this would be semi reasonable. They may be within their legal rights to sue all 60 million people. But is it okay to just start suing 60 million people. They haven’t even done that yet, they are only picking on individuals right now. A few thousand here a few thousand there. By the time they get to you they will realize that it might take a long time to get money from 60 million people who don’t want to pay them. I don’t condone stealing, I also don’t condone bullying, but when somebody tries to pick on people they think are weaker than them then people need to stand in and protect them. Let them charge 60 million people. Then let them realize that while they were charging those 60 million people, over 100 million more did exactly the same thing, but not only that they turned themselves in willingly, and said, you won’t get money from us like this. If they read this though what happens to me. Life gets interesting doesn’t it. Can you really stop the voice of the people. If I am arrested, which is possible, then somebody takes my place, and if not I’m sure the media could easily latch on to somebody who is willing to say something. They seem to like talking to crazy people. The biggest and best is always the story they are after. 60-150 people showing up at local precincts saying they want to be arrested and charged with whatever RIAA is charging people with. Hey why not if 60 + million people are involve I think the media might think it a story of some worth. The question is how valuable a story do you think it is. Life is full of interesting stories to tell. What story will you be a part of.
crazythoughts
2004-03-20 08:12:14
funny
I misspelled won't. Rather interesting.
Tom
2007-04-09 03:34:11
cool blog!
Gray
2007-04-25 03:05:53
Hello, my name is Petro, I liked yours blog, can get acquainted and with mine