Are those buckets of logic? Or buckets of fear? A fear that a system you have invested yourself in is failing others, and may be headed to fail you? Perhaps then, they are buckets of denial. Logic, as with law, is sometimes just a guise. A well-attuned heart easily reveals either for their true nature.
Originally posted by sanity
Musicians are not slaves. They sign contracts. The wisdom of that commitment is debatable, but the rule of law isn't.
It doesn't matter what logic rains upon you in buckets, you're going to see things from the unprincipled, whiny perspective of the modern-day consumer.
Just keep wielding your torches, and keep screaming and firing up that mob mentality, not thinking but just feeling, having a big fun party, using no sense at all.
Law also protects against "unwise" people being tricked into signing contracts. Or at least it's supposed to. Not everyone is a lawyer [surprise!]. The common person no longer understands the language of law. It's gotten to the point where if something doesn't specifically say what a party CAN'T do, it means they CAN. Remember the woman who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was hot? But I digress... The words of an imperfect man pounded into paper with ink and stamps lacks the ability to judge based upon morality or circumstance. That is why law is nothing without interpretation, and sometimes change. Law is not the problem. The interpreters are the problem. There is an interpreter between every lawmaker before the letters hit the page and an interpreter between every printed page before it is read back to those qualified[?] to rule.
Defense of a lifestyle built on [and I'm being fair in my following adjective] questionable ethics [currently targeting, but not limited to, unscrupulous lawyers] is a contribution to that lifestyle. But justify it however you like, as long as you can sleep at night.
I'd like to quote a fact, now: The world's richest 360 people have the same amount of money as the poorest 2.4 billion people.
With the exception of the Britneys and the "50 Cent's", which end of that spectrum do you think musicians are closer to? Now what about the CEO of, say, Sony Music?
Next time you're sipping cappuccino in your local Barnes-&-Nobles-embedded Starbucks, I strongly recommend you find a copy of Albert Einstein's "The World As I See It" (the abridged version, which is sans the mathematical formulas and incomprehensible bits on his Theory of Relativity). You can tell me I'm wrong, and I'm willing to accept that possibility, but you can't tell me Albert Einstein is wrong.
And since you mentioned it*, I also recommend you pick up the recent (September 2003) issue of National Geographic and read the article, "21st-Century *Slaves" on page 2.
To all those who would blindly defend (with great propensity) a situation or party which detracts from a world where kindness and generosity are greater measures of success than money and power, I say this: Reintroduce yourself to the global reality, grow a sense of community and reevaluate your contribution to the world. Then decide again if the defense of ALL law, which can be (and often is) heavily influenced and/or dictated by corporate models, and which may not protect you as well as you think it does (or even protect OTHERS as well as you think it does, for all you quasi-philanthropists out there), is really something you want to take a hand in.
THAT response shouldn't be necessary but is the net underneath the more OBVIOUS response that FILESHARING IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A CRIME (for reasons stated already) and the RIAA is attacking FILESHARERS, not [just] criminals.
"A Daniel come to judgement!" 'M o V by WS.'
I'm of a mind with you friend.