Twitterers defy Chinese censorship, break silence on Tiananmen Square's 'Tank Man'

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
A difference in owning it or not? You bet.

What does it matter if you control the supply?

For example, say the government wanted us to watch some of their propaganda like Little Mosque On The Prairie instead of The Simpsons, then what does censorship have to do with ownership? What matters is who controls the content, that is, who may say how much of whatever propaganda we have to watch and that is done through licensing.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Well, you better tell them that.

Trent Reznor, he recently dumped his music label and distributes his music via the web now (post label contract), the RIAA does not represent him. radiohead also distributes their music in a similar manner, mainly to get away from the RIAA mafia. it's all about control.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Well, then they shouldn't be claiming all rights to American music.

That's my point. The line between ownership and licence is very blurred and people are being duped.

In Canada we have SOCAN but they only collect on music that has been registered but the RIAA collects on everything.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Trent Reznor, he recently dumped his music label and distributes his music via the web now (post label contract), the RIAA does not represent him. radiohead also distributes their music in a similar manner, mainly to get away from the RIAA mafia. it's all about control.

Trent Reznor nor Radiohead can stop the RIAA from collecting a fee from American radio stations that play their music.

I'm an artist Durka, I know all about this sh*t.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
What does it matter if you control the supply?

For example, say the government wanted us to watch some of their propaganda like Little Mosque On The Prairie instead of The Simpsons, then what does censorship have to do with ownership? What matters is who controls the content, that is, who may say how much of whatever propaganda we have to watch and that is done through licensing.

Scott, the CRTC mandates what is played over traditional broadcast. It all comes down to the 30% Canadian content regulation, i think it's 30% anyways. The CBC is especially constricted in the amount of foreign content it broadcasts as it a government entity.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I'll take your word for it...

Well no, don't do that, look into it.

I'm pretty sure the intent is to get radio stations to play mainstream music by taking away the free indie artist option. By charging for everyone you might as well only play the more famous commercially owned artists who just happen to also be owned by the same people who own the RIAA.

I belonged to an indie artist site that offered internet radio and this was a huge issue because the site was going to have to pay. As it turned out the RIAA was mostly worried about real air radio and big internet sites so we were safe.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
I personally think the RIAA is evil and wished they would dissapear off the face of the earth. They are a group, with a mindset stuck in the 1960's, they have failed to adapt and attack the very people who they consider to be their customers. The internet is a god send for media distribution, making organizations like the RIAA all the more irrelevant. The MPAA is another group I detest... pretty much any group with an acronym for a name turns me off. ;)