Well, it looks like the courts don’t see any need to keep the CRB and SoundExchange in line with reality. This article spells it out pretty clear. By this time next year, most net radio “stations” will be broadcast from outside the US. Stupid. The revenue potential (advertising) being ignored is dumbfounding. I can’t find one person that thinks this is a good move. Oh well. We’ll get to listen to more net radio from Pakistan and Korea, chock full of anti-American ads.

As if the proposed IPP Act of 2007 isn’t bizarre enough, we also have Microsoft sharpening the dull heads of their legal department to prepare for an attack on the open source community.  We also have another loss of sensitive employee data by an IBM “contractor”.   Yet another soldier has gone missing after a bomb attack in Iraq, and fears are rising that he is in the hands of Al Qaida, along with three others from a previous attack.

Do what you can to save Net Radio in the western world. Left as-is, it will all end or shift overseas. If you think it’s worthless or a dumb cause, fine. But you should read up on what’s at stake and who’s greasing who’s palms to make this happen. The CRB and SoundExchange folks appear intent on refusing to listen to anyone else but their own bank accounts. We suffer. They get richer, at least for the retroactive time (back to 2006) and up until the net radio revenues dry up (about 1 calendar year in total).

Go to http://SaveNetRadio.org and do what you can to help!

I routinely engage (and enrage) my attorney older brother on a wide range of topics. Today’s enlightened verbage was focused on a comment posted on Scoble’s web site on whether Job’s remarks were somehow throwing stones at the RIAA while sitting comfortably on the Disney board. The obvious implication here being whether Job’s was implying that music should drop their defense shields, while he would allow movie’s to remain comfortable behind their IP shields.

Glass houses and all that. Ok.

The discussion with my brother turned into whether this was a fair transformation of the axiom from one industry to the other. He says “No! It’s not. Music and movies are entirely different”. I disagreed (respectfully, even if a bit loudly).

Let’s digress a bit, shall we?

Both industries produce a product which is (a) sold on fixed media under a shrink-wrapped EULA which imposes limited “fair use” restrictions, (b) provides for public performance or display, (c) incurs royalties and fees for certain residual or incidental use, and most importantly (d) pursues legal action to enforce the right to maintain their revenue streams relating to their products. They employ standing legal protection from DMCA, copyright, trademark, and sometimes patent rights.

Both are arguably “suffering” the effects (lost revenue and profits) as a result of piracy. Both are trying to defend their IP rights while struggling to maintain a fresh, happy face in the media. Neither is succeeding much.

He (my brother) states that they differ purely because of the capital investment required for each respective product. “A movie” he says “costs much, much more to produce and deliver than a music CD does.” That’s it. I scoffed. Impossible. No, not the difference in cost (I am aware of that), but the notion that we could split these darling identical twins apart at birth just because one has a few more dollars stuffed inside their diaper. *gasp!*
Then, out of nowhere, my bro pulls out the A-bomb of his argument: some named legal statute which provides a basis for assessing the punitive assignment in a guilty verdict based, at least in part, on the relative net “worth” of the victim, or the victim’s loss.

In plain English, this means (according to my brother) that it is in fact perfectly legal for the judge to adjust sentencing or punishment based upon the economic status of the victim. Ok, plainer English, even I had a tough time with that one: … It means the judge can punish you more severely if the person you robbed or killed was rich. I’m not talking about differentiating LARCENY from GRAND LARCENY. I’m talking about the PERSON. If the PERSON is worth more, the judge can punish you more??? Huh?!
So, if I take that at face value: The head juror would stand up and declare you guilty of “x”, and then the judge might pull up his book-of-punishments and say “well, now, that incurs a sentencing of 5 to 10 years without parole. However, due to the extreme richness of the victim, I will hereby sentence you to 20 years! Case closed!” (bang-bang). Oh, yeah, that was the gavel banging. Dramatic effect. Sorry.

If this is indeed true (he is scrambling to find me a URL to prove this), we do not live under the “All men are created equal…” vision of our fore-fathers. We now live in a communist/socialist/oligarchical state. Maybe I’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long and didn’t pay attention enough. When did we start splitting laws based solely on the economic status of victims? That’s it. I’m voting for Alfred E. Neuman next election.