"Removing outdated or poorly written laws by paying off Congress is more effective than funding lawyers to litigate their misuse on a case by case basis forever"
We need stop the existence of mafia like extortion rackets that claim they protect artists but in fact they line their own pockets and pockets of the labels and at the same time artists can't afford to even eat well.
Now that musicians make proportionally more from live shows (the recorded music is just the advertisement for the the show), the idea that anti-piracy is for the artists themselves is even more preposterous.
UBI + no anti-piracy would clearly be a huge improvement for the vast majority of artists and art itself. Let's just do that.
Not all artists can do shows - e.g. disabled, but I believe true fans will buy a record. I wouldn't like someone like RIAA to pressure someone into paying just because they downloaded my song to check it out (and I wouldn't see the money anyway). These days we have great technology and companies like Spotify can pay artists directly. Labels these days can only provide financing (on mafia like terms) and influence gate keepers, but this is also changing. You can totally make a commercial grade record on your own without label involvement, same with videos, merch etc. and even gigs.
Don't lobby. go to your local caucus and change it from within. Note that I said Caucus: even in a primary state there is some form of caucus where the party decides things. You want to be in this system, this is where the party platform is decided on. This is where the people who are working behind the scene to elect someone make the plans. In turn this is where politicians go to find people who will work for them. Which in turn means this is where you can have a one-on-one meeting from the standpoint of someone important to listen to. (when you spend a few Saturdays knocking on potential voters doors for someone that someone listens to you)
If both parties get anti-DRM legislation into the platform in random places you can be assured they will listen. If both parties see their big supporters as against something they will listen. Politicians do not want money, contrary to what you might think: they want a power, and in this country that means they need votes. Money (for ads) is one way to get votes, but real humans doing real work is at least as powerful.
This sounds hopelessly naive. At the risk of starting a political flamewar, it’s really not possible for any individual to effect large scale change to policymaking beyond the hyper local level. It’s especially impossible to go against massive lobbying interests like the RIAA.
If someone wants to do that bit I'd say go ahead. Don't tell people not to pursue lobbying though.
After the last four years I have now blocked all social media and all american news sources in my house with the expressed intent of not hearing a word about politics, news, etc... It has taken a massive toll on how I feel day to day, I found my personal relationships waning, and made me feel uncomfortable meeting new people. I'd rather pay someone to involve themselves with this kind of world, not be involved in it myself.
The meaning is to deal with a problem before it grows worse. There are a lot of variances to the expression, 'cutting it off at the head'
'Nip it in the bud'
'Cutting the problem at it's roots'
They're all references to killing something before it grows more difficult to deal with.
I feel like the problem is already fully-realised in this case, so you can't "nip it at the bud" but have to stop the full-form yes? That goes along with "cutting it off at the head" moreso in my opinion.
I don't understand what you mean by this! I know it's an expression or a way of saying something, but I don't understand what you mean