Home Digital Music News: Insider Blogs Prince v. The Man 2.0
Log in


Forgot your password?
New user?
 
Register to access archived stories or to receive the Daily Snapshot email.
sponsors

Become a Sponsor
learn more



















 
Document Actions

Prince v. The Man 2.0

I'm afraid I have to take issue with our friend Paul regarding his swipe at lawyers getting rich off of copyright litigation.   Don't forget that it was Diamond Multimedia that provoked litigation as its key marketing strategy for the original Rio player.  They weren't the only company to do so, and they won't be the last.

What's at the heart of the Prince lawsuit, the artists participating in the existing class action, the Village People claims, etc., is the simple truth that no one else will protect artists rights from the onslaught of the fattest cat in the world except artists and the various trade associations in the creative community who shoulder the brunt of the law enforcement burden for copyright infringement.

It's really very, very simple.  The fat cats don't want us to own houses, get paid royalties, or marry their daughters.  They want to keep us down, and dictate the terms on which they let us up.  We've seen this movie before.

It's The Man 2.0.

No dogs or actors (or musicians) allowed.

No wait -- they actually do allow dogs into the Googleplex, just no actors or musicians.  And songwriters are welcome to clean the toilets.

 
Comments
 
 
Bloggers
Ray Beckerman, Ray Beckerman, P.C.
Steve Gordon, Steve Gordon Law
Rags Gupta, Brightcove
Chris Castle, Christian L. Castle, Attorneys
« December 2008 »
                                                              
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
 

Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System

This site conforms to the following standards: