Comments on: Pay-Per-Call

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:59:06 +0000

Haha, good point. Based on their track record, they probably will.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:52:05 +0000

At least it HAS been exposed. Hopefully some of the other artists on that list follow in Marx’s footsteps.

The track was actually played in court to verify that it was the same one retrieved from the tereastarr@KaZaA share folder—and one of the trial’s few moments of levity came when the judge asked why the playback of such a terrific song had been cut short? (He was apparently serious, preferring Marx’s smooth acoustic guitar to the No Doubt track that preceded it.)

In case we needed it, here’s just a little proof that the judge overseeing the case might not have been the best choice. Are the RIAA and ASCAP going to sue the government and/or everyone at that trial for those public performances?

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:08:45 +0000

This is exactly what I’m talking about, though I didn’t think Richard Marx would be the first to come out. Oh well, it’s got to start somewhere.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/richard-marx-attacks-riaa-after-19m-thomas-verdict.ars

By: James Tiedt

James Tiedt — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:05:00 +0000

and anyone who reads it must pay me $0.75…

By: Jurand Nogieć

Jurand Nogieć — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:40:00 +0000

I hereby copyright this note.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:34:09 +0000

At what point will the artists themselves throw up their arms and yell “enough is enough!” If RIAA had their way, no one would play music under any circumstance other then in their house on their one licensed device. It doesn’t seem like they’re going to give up their crusade unless someone from the other side starts to complain — or a rational judge actually hears a RIAA case. It’s just a bit ridiculous.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000