Think I mostly agree with this...
PostPosted:Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:35 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studio ... ter%2C_Ltd.
Though I find it hilarious that it's MGM leading the plaintiffs. They haven't made a good movie in years. My mom got fired from there after a big internal scuffle, and she said that basically the only people left recently were the cronies of one of her former colleagues, who'd become a raging alcoholic, his boss who was of a similar temperment, and my sense is that no one at the company had produced a goddamn thing in years. From the sense of the overall company attitude I got, I'm not surprised that they'd choose to sue the hell out of someone to get some revenue. They recently got bought by Sony and mostly fired themselves, but I can understand how this lawsuit could easily have been led by them.
Still, I agree with the decision. There are plenty of good ways to distribute files without something like Grokster, and if 95% of their traffic wasn't illegal music/movies (with another 4.999% being porn I'm sure) they wouldn't have gotten in trouble... As unpopular as this realization may be among men my age, if no one paid for music, VERY few people would be making it. I'm not saying I support RIAA grandmother-suing style tactics, but still, the notion that you shouldn't have to pay for something someone devoted much of their life to be able to make for you is just still a bit fucked up.
Though I find it hilarious that it's MGM leading the plaintiffs. They haven't made a good movie in years. My mom got fired from there after a big internal scuffle, and she said that basically the only people left recently were the cronies of one of her former colleagues, who'd become a raging alcoholic, his boss who was of a similar temperment, and my sense is that no one at the company had produced a goddamn thing in years. From the sense of the overall company attitude I got, I'm not surprised that they'd choose to sue the hell out of someone to get some revenue. They recently got bought by Sony and mostly fired themselves, but I can understand how this lawsuit could easily have been led by them.
Still, I agree with the decision. There are plenty of good ways to distribute files without something like Grokster, and if 95% of their traffic wasn't illegal music/movies (with another 4.999% being porn I'm sure) they wouldn't have gotten in trouble... As unpopular as this realization may be among men my age, if no one paid for music, VERY few people would be making it. I'm not saying I support RIAA grandmother-suing style tactics, but still, the notion that you shouldn't have to pay for something someone devoted much of their life to be able to make for you is just still a bit fucked up.