To: Cary H. Sherman, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Chris Dodd, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
All political leaders are falling into the trap of promoting Internet censorship. They are misinterpreting the impact of free access to content on the audiovisual industry and publishing market. I speak to you from a conservative perspective aimed at the consumer society, of course.
In the short term, users will flee to foreign file hosting services. These companies will be able to obtain more information than American datacentres. Exotic countries will play with personal information of million users. Cancellation of Megaupload doesn't brake all options. It's not necessary to cut files in pieces to upload it. Mysterious companies will offer entire storage services. Please, you mustn't allow it. This could mean the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications.
Second argument raised by the same strategic role. American literature is propaganda. Hollywood spreads propaganda, advertising of your system. Music production is propaganda. Many members of your Democratic and Republican Party, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are harming activities in the whole world.
Consequently, without a wide diffusion of these elements, hypothetical allies will not be able to know American positive virtues. Politicians and judges are hindering recruitment of potential allies related to the great American farce. Your country would leave the main virtue, creating and distributing false realities, deceptive dreams focused on generating admiration and respect.
Many creations weren't exclusively produced by commercial interests. Politicians and businessmen endure ignorance.
The novel Altneuland (1902) was not written for commercial purposes. The Molussian Catacomb (1931), may the Court remove this ideological creation? Ninotchka (1939), how many copies should be sold? No time for flowers (1952) has an useful background for the cause. The novel Exodus (1958), or its cinematographic version of 1960, does deserve to be known by all generations? For rich and educated people only? Big Jim McLain (1952), very funny movie that we all want to watch, but almost nobody would buy. All these titles have a common feature: ideological advertising!
This attack on the massive diffusion of your ideological armory represents a strategic break, a communication outage. Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
Politicians and companies are confusing propaganda with piracy. I'm not talking about culture and freedom of speech. I am referring to the survival and expansion of your country. I expose the ability to persuade, deceive, lead. America won the Cold War because convinced the world. The liberal system prevailed because sold a fake picture of happy society. "First dose for free, second you must pay."
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty discs of …. I have always paid the copyright (including a percentage of royalties), all my purchases have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. Free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies. We don't believe either that WikiLeaks is alien to North American intelligence.
Proceedings against this website caught millions of necessary files to continue the collective hypnosis. You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow strategic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from Megaupload, pornographic literature, modern rubbish music (99.9%), and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless, backward. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has scarce argumentative credibility. If they had seen really Spanish films selected by the Academy Awards, they would know that all our movies were lousy filth.
We suspect you have control on Megaupload. The world needs to recover million files that judicial authorities and FBI have retained. You must understand it as an investment, necessary subsidy to promote the cultural supremacy of the United States on the planet.
Contents inserted in popular video sharing websites are the best way of promoting works that might get lost forever. When you try to protect intellectual property erasing it, you're contributing to the failure of your own industry. The people forget rapidly. Traders know nothing on market strategy.
When you push to close an account or erase a YouTube content, you're condemning to forget an old performer, or his work, forever. Record companies won't be able already to sell the next collection because that artist will be known by nobody, references won't exist.
How can you censure a vinyl that nobody edits for fifty years? I cannot believe you represent the audio-visual industry. Are you stupid or ignorant simply?
Every file uploaded in some network share is spreading the talent of creators and promoters. This means free publicity. If you threaten this advantage, you're harming own economic interest.
Producers aren't acting rationally. You cannot sell an artistic product if public doesn't know it. YouTube realizes promotional campaign, the best marketing. When a company demands to erase a file, is causing millionaire losses in the future. You're sinking the market because you don't understand this system has evolved.
When trademarks denounce infringements systematically, user accounts are closed automatically, but this action will suppose future loss. This absurd legal request has erased its own product, everybody will forget it.
You try to protect the copyright, but you're reducing profit. You're killing creations forever. YouTube can rescue it. Streaming can increase your profit. Bad management is your worst enemy. The economic concept has expired. Renew you!
Mr. Eric Schmidt, we all are grateful for the collaboration of Google Inc. and YouTube towards the legal observance. For this reason I propose a simple requisite to satisfy different rights. When a supposed owner threatens to remove contents, he must justify his unquestionable legitimacy. Complainants should certify with proof of payment they are remunerating the respective royalty to the authors and performers.
Many themes aren't on the market because anybody edits this material for more than half a century. The uploaded file was coming from original vinyl, not new editions, it's out of print.
Some discs contain old recordings of missing «doo-wop» groups. Those firms have disappeared. Users have lost that artistic material because a suspicious commercial entity has denounced 'copyright infringement'.
If this copyright is still active, is the claimant paying the respective percentage to the authors and performers? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! Where are they now? The survivors and heirs of these ephemeral vocal groups should seek their old titles. If any music publisher is including their work in a new collection without notice to them, they can report possible fraud to initiate criminal procedures.
We can also find record companies and rash claimants who attempt an unlawful taking of royalties. Sometimes complainants don't have real property right about the product they are claiming. They want to replace an old brand disappeared decades ago. Who is the real owner of an old vinyl?
This could represent a copyright theft. That deserves to be known by the Justice Department. The business entity—first plaintiff—may also have a criminal sanction because is acting with illicit profit, unlawful taking.
I repeat the question, who is the real owner of an OOP vinyl? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! New music publishers prefer to bury their voices forever because managers can't exploit them again. Are they compensated with the corresponding royalty if their work is currently published for commercial use?
Some record companies want to charge property rights supplanting missing trademarks, old record labels. Can only collect their new products.
Most producers are merciless people. They forgot to Frankie Lymon. Managers never cared about the depression of Elvis Presley and Del Shannon. Businessmen just love their cash account.
The streaming collection of (…) in YouTube is now empty. This user has lost many hours uploading material almost impossible to find. We contemplate an unwarranted warning from (…).
If these firms aren't able to justify their property rights about those rare vinyl records, they should compensate to this YouTube user, to the real creators of the material removed, to YouTube and… they could have an appointment with the court. Well, it's only a hypothesis. I value the damage to the user at more than five thousand dollars and an apology from the chairmen. Are you gentlemen?
Companies intend to flood the courts of the whole world with thousands of untenable demands, but the law enforcement may turn against them. 'Copyright theft' is the concept. Unable to find one hundred record labels registered to collect the same copyright. Even perpetual copyright must have only one firm to receive royalties.
I cannot understand either some companies are damaging their own publicity. What genius manages its marketing? I'm sorry, another department ordered it.
Why do you want we forget old artists? This way you'll sell almost nothing tomorrow.
Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies.
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty Gene Pitney discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. The free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow classic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from cyberlockers: modern rubbish music—99.9%—and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
All political leaders are falling into the trap of promoting Internet censorship. They are misinterpreting the impact of free access to content on the audiovisual industry and publishing market. I speak to you from a conservative perspective aimed at the consumer society, of course.
In the short term, users will flee to foreign file hosting services. These companies will be able to obtain more information than American datacentres. Exotic countries will play with personal information of million users. Cancellation of Megaupload doesn't brake all options. It's not necessary to cut files in pieces to upload it. Mysterious companies will offer entire storage services. Please, you mustn't allow it. This could mean the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications.
Second argument raised by the same strategic role. American literature is propaganda. Hollywood spreads propaganda, advertising of your system. Music production is propaganda. Many members of your Democratic and Republican Party, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are harming activities in the whole world.
Consequently, without a wide diffusion of these elements, hypothetical allies will not be able to know American positive virtues. Politicians and judges are hindering recruitment of potential allies related to the great American farce. Your country would leave the main virtue, creating and distributing false realities, deceptive dreams focused on generating admiration and respect.
Many creations weren't exclusively produced by commercial interests. Politicians and businessmen endure ignorance.
The novel Altneuland (1902) was not written for commercial purposes. The Molussian Catacomb (1931), may the Court remove this ideological creation? Ninotchka (1939), how many copies should be sold? No time for flowers (1952) has an useful background for the cause. The novel Exodus (1958), or its cinematographic version of 1960, does deserve to be known by all generations? For rich and educated people only? Big Jim McLain (1952), very funny movie that we all want to watch, but almost nobody would buy. All these titles have a common feature: ideological advertising!
This attack on the massive diffusion of your ideological armory represents a strategic break, a communication outage. Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
Politicians and companies are confusing propaganda with piracy. I'm not talking about culture and freedom of speech. I am referring to the survival and expansion of your country. I expose the ability to persuade, deceive, lead. America won the Cold War because convinced the world. The liberal system prevailed because sold a fake picture of happy society. "First dose for free, second you must pay."
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty discs of …. I have always paid the copyright (including a percentage of royalties), all my purchases have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. Free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies. We don't believe either that WikiLeaks is alien to North American intelligence.
Proceedings against this website caught millions of necessary files to continue the collective hypnosis. You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow strategic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from Megaupload, pornographic literature, modern rubbish music (99.9%), and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless, backward. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has scarce argumentative credibility. If they had seen really Spanish films selected by the Academy Awards, they would know that all our movies were lousy filth.
We suspect you have control on Megaupload. The world needs to recover million files that judicial authorities and FBI have retained. You must understand it as an investment, necessary subsidy to promote the cultural supremacy of the United States on the planet.
Contents inserted in popular video sharing websites are the best way of promoting works that might get lost forever. When you try to protect intellectual property erasing it, you're contributing to the failure of your own industry. The people forget rapidly. Traders know nothing on market strategy.
When you push to close an account or erase a YouTube content, you're condemning to forget an old performer, or his work, forever. Record companies won't be able already to sell the next collection because that artist will be known by nobody, references won't exist.
How can you censure a vinyl that nobody edits for fifty years? I cannot believe you represent the audio-visual industry. Are you stupid or ignorant simply?
Every file uploaded in some network share is spreading the talent of creators and promoters. This means free publicity. If you threaten this advantage, you're harming own economic interest.
Producers aren't acting rationally. You cannot sell an artistic product if public doesn't know it. YouTube realizes promotional campaign, the best marketing. When a company demands to erase a file, is causing millionaire losses in the future. You're sinking the market because you don't understand this system has evolved.
When trademarks denounce infringements systematically, user accounts are closed automatically, but this action will suppose future loss. This absurd legal request has erased its own product, everybody will forget it.
You try to protect the copyright, but you're reducing profit. You're killing creations forever. YouTube can rescue it. Streaming can increase your profit. Bad management is your worst enemy. The economic concept has expired. Renew you!
Mr. Eric Schmidt, we all are grateful for the collaboration of Google Inc. and YouTube towards the legal observance. For this reason I propose a simple requisite to satisfy different rights. When a supposed owner threatens to remove contents, he must justify his unquestionable legitimacy. Complainants should certify with proof of payment they are remunerating the respective royalty to the authors and performers.
Many themes aren't on the market because anybody edits this material for more than half a century. The uploaded file was coming from original vinyl, not new editions, it's out of print.
Some discs contain old recordings of missing «doo-wop» groups. Those firms have disappeared. Users have lost that artistic material because a suspicious commercial entity has denounced 'copyright infringement'.
If this copyright is still active, is the claimant paying the respective percentage to the authors and performers? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! Where are they now? The survivors and heirs of these ephemeral vocal groups should seek their old titles. If any music publisher is including their work in a new collection without notice to them, they can report possible fraud to initiate criminal procedures.
We can also find record companies and rash claimants who attempt an unlawful taking of royalties. Sometimes complainants don't have real property right about the product they are claiming. They want to replace an old brand disappeared decades ago. Who is the real owner of an old vinyl?
This could represent a copyright theft. That deserves to be known by the Justice Department. The business entity—first plaintiff—may also have a criminal sanction because is acting with illicit profit, unlawful taking.
I repeat the question, who is the real owner of an OOP vinyl? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! New music publishers prefer to bury their voices forever because managers can't exploit them again. Are they compensated with the corresponding royalty if their work is currently published for commercial use?
Some record companies want to charge property rights supplanting missing trademarks, old record labels. Can only collect their new products.
Most producers are merciless people. They forgot to Frankie Lymon. Managers never cared about the depression of Elvis Presley and Del Shannon. Businessmen just love their cash account.
The streaming collection of (…) in YouTube is now empty. This user has lost many hours uploading material almost impossible to find. We contemplate an unwarranted warning from (…).
If these firms aren't able to justify their property rights about those rare vinyl records, they should compensate to this YouTube user, to the real creators of the material removed, to YouTube and… they could have an appointment with the court. Well, it's only a hypothesis. I value the damage to the user at more than five thousand dollars and an apology from the chairmen. Are you gentlemen?
Companies intend to flood the courts of the whole world with thousands of untenable demands, but the law enforcement may turn against them. 'Copyright theft' is the concept. Unable to find one hundred record labels registered to collect the same copyright. Even perpetual copyright must have only one firm to receive royalties.
I cannot understand either some companies are damaging their own publicity. What genius manages its marketing? I'm sorry, another department ordered it.
Why do you want we forget old artists? This way you'll sell almost nothing tomorrow.
Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies.
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty Gene Pitney discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. The free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow classic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from cyberlockers: modern rubbish music—99.9%—and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
