By Wes Dodson
July 5, 2014 at 3:37am
FILE SHARING BEGAN WITH THE MARKETING OF DUAL CASSETTE MACHINES!!!
In this day and age of legalities and the assumed moral principals that surround file sharing, I have to wonder:
Where the fuck were RIAA attorneys… where was Lars when Sony was mass manufacturing those big ass boom boxes in the early 80’s that would eventually morph into dual cassette machines? You know what dual tape decks do? They SHARE audio!!! In fact, Sony has (and I use their name purely as a precursor to the topic) manufactured blank cassettes for more than two decades, and to my knowledge they still do! They continue feeding these infringement sucklings with their file sharing gateway drugs!
THERE ARE NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WARNING LABELS ON BLANK CASSETTES SOLD ANYWHERE ON EARTH!
Home stereo components would, by design, evolve into copyright infringing appliances, effectively marketed to a generation of audiophile grabasses, permitting them to transfer audio data from 8 track tapes and vinyl albums to a new fangled 2 track cassette tape medium. Not even FCC regulated airwaves are safe from someone pressing record when their favorite song was being played over the airwaves. By extension, the FCC and licensed radio broadcasters are equally guilty of a serious range of file sharing infractions as well... are they not?
In addition to the tape to tape feature which would soon boast of new technology that permitted one to share a file even faster... the engineers of electronic manufacturing and development entities called it hi-speed dubbing!
I bring this up, because I have yet to hear this legitimate footnote in file sharing testimonies… and being there at the dawn of all of this, I gotta say... it appears that industry moguls have long double dipped in the matter.
Instead of filing bullshit lawsuits against 500,000 IP addresses in an already overburdened Federal Court docket, how’s about record companies justify the measly pennies on a dollar that they pay an artist from the legitimate sale of an album through his or her label contract?
The 99% here represents a marketplace of artists and their creative works; the 1% represent labels and affiliated interests (hereby known as: 'The Bank') that have been cleverly structured over the years to outright fuck the enjoyment out of the beauty of making music!
How’s about your parent companies pay back royalties and damages for the injustices of blank cassette tape marketing and file sharing analog stereo component sales, that did nothing less than the exact same thing that have your exotic, Egyptian cotton undergarments in a wad over now?
GO SUE YOURSELF!
Further spiritual instruction to follow...
Lastly, I bought Back In Black on vinyl when it was released in 1980. I would own it again five years later, as part of completing a binding obligation to a 1 Cent record and tape mail order club (administered by Col*mb*a Records). I would buy the cassette twice before the end of that decade, and I have since bought it twice on compact disc.
[Wes appears before the Supreme (Meat Lovers Pizza) Court, in the case of Wes vs. Back In Black:]
Bailiff ALL RISE!!!
“... so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury; distinguished noblemen… fine, hot ass honeys, I ask you:
... at what point do I rightfully own this motherfu*ker? How many times must I purchase (license) this collection of sound recordings before I am free to copy, backup, restore, share, and/ or preserve, or use as a coaster for a frosty adult beverage?
The courtroom is taken aback, chattering amongst themselves…
I said ORDER in this god damned Court!
The jury is hereby instructed to ignore Mr. Dodson’s previous outburst, and Mr. Dodson, I again remind you… one more outburst like that and I’ll cast your ass down there with the sodomites...”
“I wish I was black…”
(Judge looks over his glasses)
“Excuse me, Mr. Dodson?”
“I said, FUCK this court! This COURT is out of order! NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!”
BECAUSE THE MUSIC MATTERS!!!
The Editor's Desk
The Case of Wes vs. Back In Black