US Senator criticizes P2P fines

Bravo! Norm Coleman for president!

I wouldnt go that far jimmyjojo.

$750 to $150,000 is insane and completely unfair. What's really bad is that it's per song. The average person could not afford to pay that amount (if they had a bunch of songs) whereas the RIAA can afford the small(if any) amount of money they loose due to p2p.

Justa like alot of other buisnesses in capitalism, the people with power will usually abuse it.

haha! are you saying we should become a socialist society? Down with entrepreneurs!!! lol i think that would be the day. Go capatalism!!!

I live in MN where Norm is one of our U.S. senators. While I'm not a fan of his, I do give him credit for getting this issue right. To the poster (jimmyjojo) that said "Norm Coleman for President," please check Coleman's positions on other issues. It will make you think twice.

Hey's where Dela? Anyway, Coleman right. I could get at least 2 cars with that amount of money. $150,000 for each song. That's insane. But then, we're talking about the RIAA here. No surprises, cuz they're a bunch of greedy *lots of swearwords and offensive langauge* no-good bastards.

hey lets just get real I can buy acd with 18 songs on it for $12.00 so lets break that down thats .66666 per song so if the music and recording industry thinks thats a fare price why do they want so much more????? because its about the bengamins.....

socialist society? hell no. That wasn't my point, there are levels of power that corporations have that they abuse. Entreprenures are people with vision and timing, once you lose that vision though, similar effects happen (comparing to this issue at hand). That is when people of the board squeeze the money out of the product with no up-keep, the product dies, new people take over, and again the cycle repeats. Regarding the RIAA: they live in the past (when they were profitable), now they feel like there is a chance that they could lose profit, They are trying to draging their feet when it comes to new technology that would change the way they make profits, Even if it means lashing out at their own consumer, and that will be the downfall of "their" product.

Quote:

---

Hey's where Dela?

---

Hum my guess is that Norm Coleman probaly has Kazaa on his computer and has downloaded a bunch of kiddie porn and Michael Jackson Songs. I do tell you one thing though if they make it any harder for the RIAA to sue people the RIAA is not going to settle for 2,000 any more. Something else needs to be done about the RIAA. People share there vast quanity of songs that gives the RIAA reason to hack that persons computer to see what else they have. I think that is wrong. The MPAAis starting from the inside out trying to catch these people who are leaking the movie out to the internet. but the big difference for the MPAA and the RIAA is time, how long does it take to download a song compared to a movie? big difference. Dont get me wrong I think if they lowered prices of cd's to about 7.99us dollars I would buy again. but until that happens I'm not going to buy any more cd's.

Oh, you people are so "cute". Democrats vs Republicans, Conservatives vs Liberals. Once upon a time, my very smart physics professor tried to explain to me why people living in a 2-dimensional world cannot see or even realize the presence of the people in the 3-dimensional world, much less understand them. The fact is that politicians from both the political spectrums are the same, no matter how diametrically-opposite they are. They screw the same pool of interns, take bribes from the same bunch of government contractors, pass the same laws to enable legalized robbery of the citizenry, they only say different things that they are never gonna doing anything REAL about so that we think there is a "vibrant democracy" going on. The people voted Bush out in '92 because he raised taxes (remember "read my lips"), did that work? NO, Clinton raise taxes even more right after the election. The people voted the Democrats out of power from House for the first time in four decades because they passed gun laws, did that work? No, the Republicans did not make any real change in that respect, which they could if they want to by "being mean". And if by some chance a "real issue" has to be voted a certain or else the lot of them will be thrown out of office, well, there is always the good ol' Supreme Court to "fix" it, no matter how unconstitutional it is. Poor ol' Sandra Day O'Conner, a Republican "force" to vote liberal by her handlers many times, despite the fact it make no sense to everybody, including herself. And yes, the Justices screw the same pool of interns. I hope we all enjoy these arguments, because they don't mean anything. It does not matter a tiny bit even if it was on C-Span on Sunday morning, in the headlines of New YorK Times, or on Nightline. The only way this country run is what the big corporate CEOs, the big union bosses, the folks in Hollywood, and the people at New York Times want it to. And gee, we thought the super-holy high priests at NYT do not manipulate the news, ha, ha. Contrary to the media propaganda, your vote does not matter, much less your voice. They only want you to believe otherwise so that you would never come to realize the truth, and inevitably do something REAL about it. Yea, there are a few of us know who knows the truth, but the "system" realize that and made sure we are materialistically comfortable, and do not do anything to mess things up. 'nough said, I will now return this Internet account back to its real owner, sorry guy.

I completely agree with most of your points. We do live in a capatilist society (by capatilism, i mean free trade and the right to own and operate your own business). It is not the corporate CEOs that are screwing everyone over. Its not the "big guy at the top". There is no "big guy". It is a corporate machine! Almost every major industry in both mine and your countries (I live in Canada), is that they are owned by shareholders. The board of directors and CEOs of a company are elected by these shareholders. If the CEOs don't do a good job, they will not stick around, there will be a new one the next day. The objective of any major corporation in our society is to make the shareholder's happy, that is how a corporation will succeed. That is the root of any argument when it comes to a corporation being successful. Recording inudstry or otherwise. The "big guy" at the top? There is no big guy, they are multi-millionaire investors who want to keep their couple mills they invested. So? what do we do about it? What can we do about it? From their standpoint...nothing! We are just consumers to them. We don't matter. We never haved mattered. They only care about taking the money out of our pockets by using phoney advertising (oh, this doesn't hurt the big guys at the top, the movie producers, etc, it hurts use, the set painters, the crew, etc). So what is my point? The point is is that alot of federal politicians are curropt. They are not doing it for a salary. If wanted the smartest people in the world running our country, you'd pay them at least what they would get doing what they would be getting paid doing whatever else they were doing, not 1/10th of that amount. So our politicians are politicians for what reasons? Well either fame or to make a difference and make people happy. One thing people don't take into consideration. It is not who is running our country that makes the biggest differences. It is who is running our municipality. Our local officials, mayors and city councillors. Look at how much of a difference Guilliany made (can't spell his name sorry). It is because these are the politicians who are the closest to the people! They are the most influential and should be the most recognized. The big guys at the top are major shareholders who invest alot of money into our economy and keep it thriving. They keep money flowing. Just look at the US economy! The US government and the big guys at the top have the same outlook on our society. Keep the money flowing and keep the "customers" happy. Thats the root of the problem.

What you said made a lot of sense, but let me add something. While people in Canada (and England) tend to be better educated and more worldly, people here tend to limit their concerns to their own immediate social circle -- job, friends, hobbies, etc. Majority of us sadly cannot name our sitting Vice President of the United States. So, while we do pretty good at electing our local offcials, especially in smaller cities and communities, we are virtually blind when it comes to electing people we never met, like Senators and President of the US, or hiring a CEO for big companies like IBM. So we rely on the media to tell us who is who, to help us find the right guy (or gal). Guess what? The media in turn is "owned" by the big politicians and CEO's, and big union bosses. However the system would have still worked if this country is ran bottom-up, like democracies are supposed to. But instead, things are really done top-down, with the big media in NYC telling the little guys around the country how to vote, who to hire (for CEO at IBM, etc). And as a last resort, they will get the Supreme Court to invent non-existing rights to enable their perverted agenda even when the people are informed and are fully against it. Of course, they dress it up good PR, the way Adolf Hitler pulled on over the German people. Guilliani is a creature of the media, don't be fooled. He has mistress just like the other politicos, and he is probably taking money under the table. Or they may disguise it as some kind of consulting fee. Where is a good Marine general when you need one?

I do not agree with you in the fact taht all politicians are curropt. The mayor of my city is a homosexual who uses this to get vote from the people. If people don't vote for him, they're homophobes, if people don't agree with his actions for the city, they're gay haters. This is happening in our society everywhere and people just don't understand that we are a democratic country and that they should learn to study the facts.

Sounds like you don't agree with me that we are pretty good at electing local politicians. Well, in large city, the mayorial post can almost be like a senator, where the masses of population do not permit personal knowledge of the candidates, and the media gets to play mischief.

In some respects, that is true, but I still do believe that politicians can be good-hearted people. Look at the way guilliani has changed central park and cleaned up with the city. Now, obviously one thing that is not true is that Guilliana cleaned up the city, it was the public works department. That is another thing that politicians do that sort of irritate me is take credit for their councillor's and committee's work. A city has an executive policy committee and a public works department and a sanitation department for a reason. It is made up of people who help decide what would work best for our city and then make out a detailed plan, and all the mayor has to do is approve it. Then, when it's all said and done...it was the mayor's brilliant idea or it was the mayor's stupid plan (oh, but i didn't make it, it was the committees idea). You're right when you say some politicians are lying cheating backstabbers, but that is not to say that all are. The only problem is that almost every politician tries to get elected for fame, not for being good hearted. Do you think the "best" of our society are going to run for politics if they get paid $100,000 a year? It's ridiculous.