EMI, which is looking less like a music label and more like a lawsuit label, is at it again. This afternoon they filed a lawsuit alleging “massive and blatant” copyright infringement by Hi5, VideoEgg and ten John Doe defendants to be named later. The core of the suit is over copyrighted EMI content that appears on Hi5, particularly music videos.
EMI is a particularly litigious company. In the recent past, they’vd sued or threatened to sue AllofMP3, YouTube, Apple, MP3Tunes, XM Radio, Infospace (can’t really blame them there) and even The Beatles.
One person close to the litigation says that the parties have been negotiating with EMI for well over a year to avoid litigation, but that they were unable to reach agreement. The shakedown attempt before litigation is standard practice these days. But what is a little different here is that EMI is going deep into the supply chain to find other deep pockets.
VideoEgg, for example, provided video functionality to Hi5 in the past, but the deal ended in April 2008, and they no longer work together. The ten John Doe defendants are presumably other service providers, and/or executives of Hi5, VideoEgg and those other companies. The fact that EMI included VideoEgg in the lawsuit shows that they care little about current infringement - they just want a payoff for stuff that happened in the past.
VideoEgg CEO Matt Sanchez says that they comply with all DMCA takedown demands, but never received one from EMI. VideoEgg also used AudibleMagic , he says, to identify and proactively removed copyrighted material.
The lawsuit complaint, which was filed in New York, is below.
EMI Music v. VideoEgg, Hi5 and others - Get more Legal Forms
See all
Post
Don’t steal music and sync it with your videos. Purchase it from a legitimate outlet like http://www.audiomicro.com
BTW…..Nice DocStoc link
legitimate how, now? not everybody follows blind links, especially from a spam-happy comment feed such as TC’s.
ok….type AudioMicro.com into your URL…sorry for the link
Posting anonymously on this one.
This is like asking the phone company to monitor all phone conversations for illegal activity.
The fact that they didn’t get takedown notices to comply with shows that this was a sniper attack by the lawyers.
Oooo, thanks for the tip Ryan.
Sad to see the only talent left at EMI is legal and not artistic.
“EMI, which is looking less like a music label and more like a lawsuit label” - that was really funny.
I suppose suing people is one alternative business model.
Is this a transformation of a dying company? - since music labels are going down they will have to transform.
Internet content is by nature- though not always by definition -free. EMI is using scare and capture target strategies to get a bit of cash.
EMI is refusing to go down as the footnote that labels will become, it will transform instead into a predator, and it has fuel to get it going.
Isnt that a definition of a pirate ? or is this closer to a rogue state?
From a humanist point of view it should be outlawed.
into my URL? Smoke pot much?
You have your facts backwards, the Beatles sued them.
maybe its not such a bad strategy for EMI, they might be trying to get rid of the competition as they set up their own web outlets…or maybe I give them too much credit
And in other news, SCO starts a record label.
The interesting part here is that this is over music _videos_. Videos used to be purely marketing vehicles but now they actually generate income thanks to the iTunes music store.
In the days before you could buy music videos on iTunes, EMI would have a very hard time proving lost revenue because of the infrigement. Now it’s pretty simple.
So…we have a paradox where music videos used to be ‘free’ but now they are revenue generators. This is the reverse effect of what is happening to music itself.
Very interesting.
I guess we’re seeing Mr. Hands’ “new direction” with EMI and its failing ways.
Here’s a NYTimes article about EMI and their new leader, if you’re so inclined:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06.....16emi.html
EMI, MTV and Ask Jeeves Veteran Adam Klein Joins VideoEgg as President
[ 2007.05.16 | Press Release ]
http://www.videoegg.com/press/ve_adamklein
SAN FRANCISCO, May 16, 2007
“Klein most recently served as the executive vice president of strategy and business development at EMI Music where he led adoption of digital technology and was responsible for shaping new strategic and business relationships in the emerging digital world.”
“I will look to Adam and his experience as we secure media content for an audience that increasingly goes online for entertainment.” said Matt Sanchez, VideoEgg CEO and co-founder…. Guess that did not quite work out - they secured something alright - a lawsuit.
Adam has since left the building - would be interesting if he is subpoenaed to take the stand as a witness for both sides. Adam might be musing to an old George Jones tune about now … “Take this job and shove it…”
EMI is just protecting of what is legally theirs . It is called property rights people.
Michael Arrington, how do you feel if I myself replicate (mirror) your TechCrunch website on my own site (word for word, graphics and everything ). I mean I am doing it without your permission. I will only put one line at the top of the main page, saying that all the materials on this site is a copy of TechCrunch in its entirety.
I am sure that if you would try to take me to court, because I will ignore any email contact from you or your lawyer for any request that I take it down, since I live in a different country and I am not sure whether a court order for copyright violations in the US is enforceable in our courts here in New Zealand.
My example is entirely a hypothetical one just to invoke people’s minds to apply reason & logic. It is easy for someone to berate another person when he/she tries to protect his/her property rights by legal means, when it is not their property rights that are being violated, but when a similar situation occurs to those critiques, those critiques would be the first one to jump up and scream loudly, hey man (or woman) that thing (intellectual or tangible property) you’re using belongs to me, and you have no right to use it without my permission. You can pay me $X dollars for the right for its use.
There is no reason why EMI would refuse giving Hi5 & VideoEgg a permission to use EMI copyrighted materials, provided that there was a contractual agreement (perhaps financial such as payment of royalties) amongst them.
It is time that people wake up & champion property rights and stop thinking that they have a God given rights to what is not theirs. This means that you should champion EMI, Google, Microsoft, IBM and any company out there that produces its own products (properties) which it legally owns.
Michael, I think you’re confusing EMI with Universal regarding the threat to sue Youtube …
@14
No one is disputing the current lay of the legal landscape. I’ll be the first in line to tell you that certain actions are illegal.
Summary of my rambling below:
From a legal standpoint: makes sense.
From a business standpoint: stupid.
What we’re seeing here is a broken system and corportate denial at its finest. The record industry can, and has been, sue every possible entity and mother-lovin’ person (again, I totally agree with their rights to do so). But they can’t stop a tidal wave, even as big as they are. You’re not going to stop every person in the world, which is who they are up against.
Every customer in the world is telling these companies they want a new system. The organizations aren’t listening though. They hear it, but they’re more concerned with how to preserve present (or year 2000) income levels. Ain’t gonna’ happen. While they transition, there’s bound to be blood-letting, possibly extreme blood-letting.
The funny thing is, they’re blood-letting now with a mix of scraping for new strategies and legal pursuits. If I were a record company, I’d be investing all of that in new pursuits. Suing people is a waste of your money, at the end of the day. Fighting inevitability and all that.
This is pretty pathetic by EMI. Only the lawyers will win on this one.
However I am very concerned that EMI’s strong arming tactics may have led VideoEgg to stop their video business (Go ahead, try to find any video hosting service from VideoEgg on their web site, it’s not there anymore). I believe that’s why hi5 doesn’t have video anymore — VideoEgg dropped the service.
Anyone know if Current.TV switched to someone else?
@Falafulu Fisi
Then why didn’t EMI just file DMCA takedown requests Einstein?
Not a single one was filed, what does that tell you?
Markus said…
Then why didn’t EMI just file DMCA takedown requests Einstein?
Markus, I offered an argument and you offered none. Try to address some arguments here rather than ad hominem attack, it is silly/stupid which makes those who do that look daft in a way. Stop deriding those who can put forward a reasoned argument. Just put forward a counter argument such as what Ryan (@16) had done.
What you’ve just said wouldn’t change the fact that Hi5, VideoEgg violated EMI’s copyrights. Deal with the facts. It is similar to someone coming to your home and stealing something that belongs to you and instead of you going to the Police you just informed your lawyer that you know where the thief lives and he (lawyer) should send him/her a letter requesting that he should return what is rightfully yours? No attempt here from you to establish if the stolen property of yours had been damaged , in which case the thief must pay for it, if the property is still in his (thief’s) possession. I bet that you would want to take the thief to court to establish if damaged had been done to the stolen property instead of a simple request to the thief to return the stolen property.
EMI’s copyrights had been violated and although what you’ve just suggested is something EMI could have pursued, no one knows yet of how much commercial damage (royalty fees or potential loss revenues/sales as a result of those copyright violations, etc…) that had been inflicted on EMI. Going to court would have established those damages and if the court’s decision comes out in favor of EMI against Hi5, VideoEgg and other violators ordering them to pay the estimated amount of the potential loss revenues as the result of their illegal actions, then that is an appropriate thing to do.
If EMI just simply file a DMCA takedown request, then they ended up being the loser, because it is not established of how much the violators had gained (directly or indirectly) financially as a result of their violations of EMI copyrights.
You can’t let off someone who might have made a financial gain out of using one’s property without permission, go free without any recompensation. If the violators had made a financial gain (which is yet to be established) as a result of their illegal actions then they should share the profits with EMI or at least pay reparation fees to EMI for the commercial damage they have inflicted (directly or indirectly) on EMI. And again, going to court is the appropriate way to sort it out.
Finally Markus if you want to learn of how to be a formidable debater using reasoned argument, then I suggest you should check out or at least subscribe to the Ayn Rand Institute’s regular newsletter for their excellent articles. In that way, you won’t tempted ever again in the future to slag off others who know how to put forward a reasoned argument and perhaps you would come out even better than Einstein.
Markus here is an excellent article from the Ayn Rand Institute describing of the visions of the forefathers of the US, when they established this great nation. I reckon that you should read it, because it is the right to one’s own property was what the forefathers of the US had meant to protect when the US was found. I reckon that if those forefathers of the US are being resurrected today, I can guaranteed you that they would completely cheer for and agree with the action taken by EMI to protect its rights to its own property, because that is exactly what they had in mind when the US became independence.
Here is just a cut & paste from the full article of the bits that I want to highlight:
Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What are these rights?
The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that your life and property belong to you, not to others to use as they see fit.
I highly recommend that you should read the full article Markus here:
Put the Independence Back in Independence Day
I hope that the article would enlighten you regarding the issues of property rights. There are tons of articles about property rights issues on that website to dig around if you want to be further enlightened about the subject.
Hi5 is a social network (and a pretty big one too I hear). Social Networks exist to facilitate communication between disparate groups of people, right?. So people are talking about the stuff on the site, yeah? So EMI’s content (which I assume no-one was selling on the site?) has been uploaded to the site by the site’s users so they can talk about it, no? And if they are talking about it, is that not a good thing (people finding out about new bands, getting to listen to it to decide if they like it… that kinda thing)?
EMI are hemorrhaging losses, it’s pretty much Cold Play keeping the whole thing afloat. They are simply looking for the quick fix (legal action) rather than the long term goal (breaking acts and selling records).
A&R guys go “How can we get people to talk about my bands?”, Accountants go “Shit! people are talking about my bands, Lawyers then role in and say “Just gimme the money and everyone shut up”.
Just a though x
I would never have guessed this TC post would stir up the comments it has. Video creators can purchase sync licenses for one dollar per minute at the site that I mentioned in the first comment to this post (no html link this time) and then you won’t get sued. These sorts of legal actions by the record labels, which will not stop but are easy to criticze (as we are all programmed to hate lawyers), validate the micro stock music sync and performance licensing market.
Falafulu. You argue eloquently for the rights to intellectual property as established by law. Law is established by mores or customs and those change with ages. Not long ago, slavery was sanctioned by law. No human law is eternal. If you think about the laws about content and property rights they are really screwy and they are bound for revision.
On the one hand they are supposed to protect those that create the content, but in reality they protect disembodied corporations driven by no human value. EMI holds rights to dead musicians work. How is that ethical? EMI battles with the beatles or whoever for the rights to the creations that those guys did. How is that ethical? That this is allowed is a fluke, a well constructed one but dont mistake yourself, an amoral fluke.
Internet has exposed cracks in this very thin construct.
In principle corporations cannot apply for patents or copyrights but they can be ceded those rights and will keep them until the loops and twists of this law you so strongly defend will let them. And then they will change that law to perpetuate that.
I argue, change the law, let the flaws in the system exposed by internet take over. What is out there it is public domain. EMI is the pirate here.
Cook said…
You argue eloquently for the rights to intellectual property as established by law.
Yes, correct. We should have laws to protect our rights since if not , then there will be anarchy. That is what a civilized society is all about. The laws is there to protect my rights from you trying to violate it, and your rights from me trying to violate it. That’s what the law is there in the first place, without law, it is chaos everywhere.
Do you like to live in a society that has vague laws or laws that allow others to take what is yours with out your consent or recompensation? If your answer is yes, then you have such society to welcome you as a citizen and that country is Zimbabwe. I bet that thugs like Mugabe would welcome people like you who thinks that you can violate others rights with no protection from the law. See, Mugabe and his thugs had forcefully taken the land off from the white farmers who produce food for the country with no compensations at all. Just pure robbery and theft. See, this is the type of society that I suspect that you want to live in, ie, disrespect for what others own.
Cook said…
What is out there it is public domain.
So, you’re endorsing my hypothetical example of copying & replicating Michael Arrington’s entire TechCrunch web site to my own site? Aren’t you? TechCrunch and its content belongs to solely to Michael and his business accosiates. See there is money to be made from doing so, ie, the unauthorized copying of the entire TechCrunch site and putting it as my own, since I can strip all of Michael’s placed advertisements and put my own placed advertisements perhaps from local vendors here in New Zealand. See, I would make money out of someone else’s property that in fact I have stolen without permission.
Here is a scenario. Michael will request (perhaps thru his lawyer) that I take down all the materials that I have deliberately copied from TechCrunch , in fact the materials that I stole because my action is stealing of theft. I Ignore Michael’s request and get to keep making money out of the advertisements which I had placed on my site with Michael’s contents. After some months, Michael suspect that I might have made hundreds of thousand dollars or even more out of his content that I stole. He is no longer interested in formal dialog with me because his past email requests to take down the materials had been ignored. What his next step is ? I will leave the answer to you, since it is quite obvious.
My final question to you is this. Do you endorse or support my hypothetical example of copying (stealing) Michael’s TechCrunch content to my own site? If you say no, then you ‘ve been agreeing with me and if you say yes then you’re agreeing with what thugs like Mugabe is doing?
So, where do you stand? A Yes for Mugabe or a No to copying Michael’s site and agreeing with my defending of property rights?
I am looking forward to your answer.
Michael and his business accosiates
mean to be:
Michael and his business associates
@Falafulu: You rammmmble….
Brevity is King said…
You rammmmble….
And your argument is?
NONE.
???? Hi5 ?????
That is the name of an Australian kids TV show. (http://hi5.ninemsn.com.au/)
Basically it is kids who did not make the “make me a Britney or New Kids” mall tryout got a gig singing to 3-5 year olds.
(my 3 yr old LOVED them while we lived in Singapore years ago)
@Falafulu Fisi
Wow. You’re still stuck in the physical property is the exact same thing as intellectual property phase of thinking on this? I’m not even going to bother trying to explain the difference. Your failure to at least acknowledge the difference points to your total lack of understanding of the complexities involved. You even brought up the old classic “It’s the same as someone breaking into your house” thing. Sigh.
You also had this gem:
“What you’ve just said wouldn’t change the fact that Hi5, VideoEgg violated EMI’s copyrights. Deal with the facts.”
Not a fact at all. You just made this “fact” up (Is that what you learned from the Ayn Rand Institute?) Hi5’s users may have violated the copyright, which is exactly what the DMCA safe harbour provisions are supposed to address. Again, you clearly don’t understand some very basic points about this issue.
Are you suggesting that all network providers should be legally responsible for what their users do on their networks? And if so, how are they supposed to police their networks when no-one reports a problem? How far does this responsibility extend? Should AT&T be responsible for over-the-wire fraud? Should the USPS be responsible for illegal goods transported through their ‘network’? Where does it stop?
So again, I ask you if the infringement was so damaging (as you claim), why not just file the notice immediately and be done with it?
It’s really quite simple, but let me make it even more simple.
When faced with someone infringing your intellectual property rights, you:
a) Notify the network where the infringement is taking place so that they can remove it before it causes harm (as they are required by law to do). The end result is zero-sum (no gain/no loss).
Or…
b) Knowingly let the infringement continue without protest for a year or more and then launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit. The potential upside here could be in the millions if you can convince a judge how badly you were damaged. If you lose, the lawyers (who are ones advising EMI what action to take) still make out like bandits.
Which would you pick?
Look, I’m not American but I love many, many things about America. Your litigious culture is one thing that I find abhorrent. Particularly when it stifles innovation and competition.
Here is some reading for you:
en.wikipedia.org / wiki/DMCA
en.wikipedia.org / wiki/Safe_harbor
http://www.guardian.co.uk / technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property
PS. I posted this earlier today but the comment appears to be still awaiting moderation (probably because of the included hyperlinks which I’ve since removed)
I will add:
“Here is a scenario. Michael will request (perhaps thru his lawyer) that I take down all the materials that I have deliberately copied from TechCrunch , in fact the materials that I stole because my action is stealing of theft. I Ignore Michael’s request and get to keep making money out of the advertisements which I had placed on my site with Michael’s contents. “
This is not at all what took place, please re-read the article! EMI DID NOT issue a DMCA notice of infringement! That’s the whole point here. Hi5 complies with all such requests (as they are required by law to do).
So you’re hypothetical example above is even more irrelevant than your “I break into your house” example. But keep trying, sooner or later you might come up with something.
Haven’t we seen this movie before? It’s called “jay and silent bob strike back”…
Markus, first of all I pointed out intellectual or tangible property, so in fact you’re trying to spin it as if I’ve never mentioned the intellectual property. The right to one’s property remains the same and you argued that they shouldn’t be, as if it is somehow, violating intellectual property rights is not something serious in comparison violating tangible property rights. Obviously, you didn’t read what I quoted from the Ayn Rand Institute article, here it is again:
The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that your life and property belong to you, not to others to use as they see fit.
Which part of the quote above that you don’t understand?
You can spin it how you like, but you can’t change the fact that what you own is yours (EMI) and not to others (Hi5, VideoEgg and the rest) to use as they see fit. If you can see the reason here, then there is nothing further to be argued about, since EMI had the right to pursue legal action as they’re doing (or intending to do now).
a) Notify the network where the infringement is taking place so that they can remove it before it causes harm
Now, this is probably why EMI is taking legal action, because (if you read what I said in my previous messages) we, the general public don’t know how long this infringement had been going on. Let me ask you. Do you know how long this has been going on? If you do , please let us know. It could have been months, years, who knows? Court action is the appropriate ways to do it.
Knowingly let the infringement continue without protest for a year or more and then launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Again, do you know that if EMI knowingly let this infringement went on for months, years, … ? Just let us know if you have inside info from EMI.
Hi5’s users may have violated the copyright, which is exactly what the DMCA
EMI wouldn’t take a legal action if their lawyers think that there is no grounds. If you think that they have no grounds according to the DMCA safe harbour provisions you’ve stated, then please state it here, so that I can tip the EMI legal team about it. Can you do that for me please?
EMI DID NOT issue a DMCA notice of infringement!
This is not an obligation but an option? Besides you don’t know how long this infringement has been going on for? If it is a day or two, then it is reasonable that the best approach is to issue a DMCA notice of infringement, don’t you think. Again if you know the time length, then please tell us. If you don’t know, then EMI might know something that you & me don’t know about and that is fact. I don’t know, do you?
Look, I’m not American but I love many, many things about America. Your litigious culture is one thing that I find abhorrent. Particularly when it stifles innovation and competition.
I am not American either (from New Zealand), but can you show what innovations had been stifled ? I mean examples that don’t violate property rights of the legal owners.
@Falafulu
1) The infringement was going on for at least a year and they never issued a take down notice. If it was so detrimental to their business then why let it continue for (at least) a year? The only logical explanation is that they wanted to build up a case against Hi5, hoping for an eventual windfall with the courts. This tactic is sickeningly dirty, and shows that they’re grasping at straws because their real business is failing.
2) Remember, that we’re talking about music videos. Having a video seen more widely can only help record sales not hurt them (do you agree?). So again, this goes to show that EMI is simply hatching up a dirty scheme, that will not benefit their musicians in the end.
3) Do you not agree that Hi5 did not violate anyone’s copyright but in fact their users (allegedly) did? This is something very important that you’ve yet to acknowledge you understand. If all network operators were suddenly responsible for the actions of their users then the internet as we know it would come to a screeching halt (this is the innovation I speak of). It simply won’t work. If you disagree then you must also believe that phone companies should be responsible for crimes committed over their lines as well. Is that your position?
4) Bringing physical world analogies into this shows a lack of basic understanding. Physical and Intellectual properties have entirely different sets of laws (eg, Eminent Domain, Fair Use, Copyright Expiration, Patent Expiration, and so on). They are not, and were never intended to be the same thing. If you can’t discuss the topic without resorting to real world analogies then you’d best leave it someone else to argue the point for you.
Look, I’m not against intellectual property rights at all. But this lawsuit is unnecessary and painfully dishonest. There are very reasonable provisions in the law for this sort of thing. If these provisions are not reasonable (in EMI’s view) then that is a matter for the Lawmakers not the courts.
EMI’s money would be much better spent on investing in a new business model, not blocking up the courts and stifling innovation.
Almost forgot:
“The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that your life and property belong to you, not to others to use as they see fit.
Which part of the quote above that you don’t understand? “
You’ve brought this quote up twice now, but it’s not relevant. The phrase “Intellectual Property” did not exist at the time of Jefferson and Washington, and is in fact only came into common usage in the past 20-30 years.
Stallman says it best:
“[The phrase intellectual property] systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion”
You are obviously one of the people very confused by this term. And, as Stallman points out, this is entirely by design.
the hard thing about arguing with radicals is that you abuse logic from both ends.
Corporations do not produce any IP, they simply suck it from those who do. While property is a right we endorse, it has limits, for example you dont own people. IP is at a crossroads, it means to protect creators of content yet in reality protects a revolving chunk of capital devoid of Intellect. Ergo, it is a law that requires revision. Reality will make sure of it.
EMI should get a taste of their own medicine as they do not respect artist’s copyright:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/.....dustry-rip
so is the current plan to sue and sue and sue until people just give up? oh wait who am i kidding i forgot about the RIAA. these companies need to embrace the future and accept that music is free.
We agree with The SEO Kid. We actually posted about a product/service that is touting free music, legally distributed. Read about it here - http://barfieldmanagement.com/?p=17 .
#38 -
You had me until “accept that music is free”. And exactly how the @#$% do I pay the musicians, the recording studio… oh, & my bills, dumbass? What about those of us who produce music without the benefit of a major label, or any safety net at all? Should we just do it for your sake?
It’s the notion that music should be free, that something which you value but don’t think you should have to pay for, that has hurt everyone and our society.
The new paradigm has become “control” of our work, which is anathema to those of us who want to make a living just from creating.
The labels be damned for their asinine pursuit of punishment, rather than trying to educate people; but people with your attitude are a bigger part of the problem than the RIAA will ever be.
A lot of music artists have begun to break with the mega music corporations and have their own website business going on. They produce their own music and sell it on their website for a reasonable sum along with t- shirts, concert tickets etc …and in doing so reap all the benefits from their music instead of the mega-corps sucking up all the revenue and giving them the peanuts for their hard work,. The Music Industry uses the music artists as their personal slaves and tells us we are cheating them but in truth they are pissed off because they are the ones receiving the peanuts now and after years of sitting on their ass and getting fat off of us and the very artists they claim to be representing ..they are in trouble now because technology has put them in their place….when lawsuits are made and the music industry wins the only ones who receive any money are them and the greedy lawyers… as usual the artists get very little after it has all been siphoned off by the real greedy jerks …so don’t lay guilt trips on me and the rest of the world..because when the music industry has broken down and finally laid to rest the real music barons will be able to flourish the artists themselves…..The music labels have been too complacent and have not embraced new technology they have dragged their heels in litigation trying to stop what has been un stoppable and it has finally cost them big time….When you go to a music store and see a CD for $18 to $20 it’s no wonder kids have been dl music from pirate sites… out of that $18 or $20 how much does the artist get very little because the top feeders have gotten rich off the backs of the little guys ..Right or wrong I don’t feel sorry for none of them….the internet is not the problem they are…I enjoy going to legit music sites where I can pick and chose my songs for .79 to 89 or even 99 cents and create my own cd’s and the artist I buy from gets the money not the real crooks…They have put a choke hold on music innovation for years picking only a few artists pruning them packaging them and then forcing them down our throats on the radio and TV and making you think that’s the only talent out there…but now any group that has talent can create their own music produce it and sell it on the internet and not be hassled with the music dictators…They want you to think that they and they alone can save the music …don’t believe that …its only when they are gone will the music really be safe..When the true owners of the songs have control of the music then it will be alive and well and flourish on the internet.
Those who argued with Falafulu Fisi, google it. It’s interesting reading, and you will discover it likes to go on blogs covering a wide variety of topics just to start arguments.