Because of the rain last night and this morning, I didn't go juggle with the Music City Jugglers'. (Not that many of those guys actually show up now...)
I spent most of my time reinstalling windows on Zog so I can get it back in shape to burn CD-ROM disks. Next I'll work on a new IP Masq box.
I was thinking today about Intellectual Property. The RIAA and the MPAA talk big about protecting the artists rights and protecting the producers of intellectual property. Recently, the RIAA set up a site called "nofreelunchster.com" (that site now redirects to the RIAA homepage) that was poking fun at Napster. It included several mp3's from various people like Hillary Rosen, the president of the RIAA. They talked about protecting the artists rights and the artists control over the art.
That, my friends, is pure crap. I know this because I have a friend that writes songs. One of his published songs, when it came up for a boxed set, had a new contract for him to get royalties. It basically only gave him the money from sales in the USA. He would get nothing for international sales. He rejected that contract, and because it was already in production, they took out that section, but they wouldn't be so tolerant the next time around.
Now, whose interest do you think the recording companies and, by extention, the RIAA is protecting? The artist's or their own?
Malachi B-J Brown malachus+spencerandbrown@gmail.com