And the Daddy is….

Larry Birkhead announced today at 3:47pm that he is in fact the Dannielyn’s father. 

This post can also be found on nopornnorthampton.org I propose that nopornnorthhampton.com is an important site for educating people about censorship. It is essential for educational websites such as the above mentioned to exist in order for well adjusted, open minded individuals to have an opportunity to examine the myopic minded pro-censorship movement in contemporary
America. This site reminds the reader that even in the new millennium some people, sadly enough, are still afraid of their own sexuality. NPN’s fear of ones sense of self-sexuality has manifested into absurd quest to frighten the weak of mind into suppressing otherwise healthy thoughts about sexual activity; whether it is public or private. I have ranted before on the fact that someone out there is supporting the multi-billion dollar porn industry; it can be a healthy outlet for sexual frustration or an entertaining evening for the individual, couples or groups. NPN fears unbridled thought without regard to the fact that pornography and loving, caring relationships have the ability to co-exist. Providing testimonials and cautions from aging porn stars hardly supports the argument that women and men involved in making pornographic videos are submissive and oppressed. Many Americans feel the same way about the non-porn related jobs that they slave away at tirelessly without the hope for a better employment opportunity. I find NPN’s explicit material warning heart warming and thank them for their outstanding efforts to protect me from my own thoughts and views on pornography. With that said, I am happy to live in a country where a site such as NPN can be accessed on the web if I choose to expose myself to their censorship agenda.  It is unfortunate that NPN does not reciprocate the same respect for those who wish to avail themselves of other ideas. In closing, the one element of the site that I found particularly apropos can be examine by following the provided link or simply by reading a small part of Justice Stevens opinion in Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976).  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0427_0050_ZS.html 

Justice Stevens, Opinion of the Court…A remark attributed to Voltaire characterizes our zealous adherence to the principle that the government may not tell the citizen what he may or may not say. Referring to a suggestion that the violent overthrow of tyranny might be legitimate, he said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” [n19] The essence of that comment has been repeated time after time in our decisions invalidating attempts by the government to impose selective controls upon the dissemination of ideas.

Rick Bonadonna

Venti Americano With Room For Sir Paul McCartney

Someday soon we may be using the term “big five” when referring to major labels. The hugely successful coffee retail chain, Starbucks, has decided to use its marketing prowess to launch a record and distribution label. Just to show industry moguls that they mean business, Starbucks has come out of the box swinging big by signing Sir Paul McCartney to a one project contract, now that he is free from his Capitol Records contract.  

While Starbucks has been criticized for signing Paul McCartney to launch the label, it is hard to question the marketing success that Starbucks has enjoyed. Starbucks knows how to run a business, something that most people believe the “Big Four” have become incapable of doing due to their disconnection with how Generation Y wants to buy music. Starbucks business model is fairly obvious and critics of the majors have been shouting for years that the solution to getting record label stock out of the toilet would be a model similar to Starbucks. Initially the company will start by selling CD’s, with the intention to “outfit stores with equipment that would allow coffee drinkers to plug in their MP3 devices and fill up with music while ordering a latte.” This is the future, the CD business is over. We have watched it progressively drop off.

 

            Starbucks knows that you can’t build a successful business model on an outdated product that the next generation doesn’t want. So why sign Paul McCartney if you’re looking to get the next generations attention? Couldn’t Starbucks have gone after a Generation Y artist if that is the intended demographic?

 

            Starbucks at least knows that the future of the music industry is digital, the new “record store” is iTunes. Now maybe Starbucks and other destination locations where socialization and other consumption is going on may be the new “record store.” The new radio is social networking and likely Internet radio once WiFI is widely available. Starbucks, unlike the majors, doesn’t need terrestrial radio to push its artists. Let’s not forget also that Starbucks already sells a lot of music in CD format. If Starbucks experiment is successful, which it likely will be, then one must wonder if the newcomer to the record industry will have its own answer to the RIAA suing customers who steal music. Perhaps the skilled mixologist at Starbucks will “scald music pirates with hot coffee” as a cheaper solution then hiring lawyers.

Brokaw does Hard-Core Porn

see full story here.

Unabomber Update Kind of

I saw this article and had hoped it may have lead to an update on the current Unabomber case pending before the 9th circuit.  As I read through it I saw a quote from a letter that the Unabomber had written in a letter to the 9th Circuit Judge handling the case.  I never thought I could have agreed with someone who has killed others, but I did.  He stated, “If the government is allowed to suppress my ideas of the truth about the Unabom case, then it will soon suppress something else, and some day it will suppress the ideas and the truths that you think are important.” I do not justify his actions but he makes a good point. His writings are his ideas of the truth as he sees it.  As lawyers in training and for those of you that may stumble onto this blog that are already lawyers we know what happens in one case can be easily manipulated to fit another case.

The full article is here.

ICEBERG DEAD AHEAD!

Posted: 15 Mar 2007 02:05 AM CDT

By Steve Meyer, Inside Music Media™ ContributorA long time ago, in a galaxy far far away from MTV, VH-1, too much disposable music, misused call-out research, corporate radio, the Internet, downloading, there was a whole lot more great radio, a whole lot more great label promotion people, departments called ‘Artist Development’ at all labels, and more people in the music business who really cared about music, not “product” and fashion videos.

Now we’re engaged in a civil war between the states, i.e., the states of mind-set in the music industry versus the states of mind-set in the consumer marketplace, and this war will test whether this business of music can so long endure.

In my opinion, it’s the failure of the music industry to fully understand the changes that have occurred in the consumer marketplace over the past decade that have contributed to the chaos existing at all major music companies today. While millions were illegally downloading in the late 90’s, the industry seemed to put its collective heads in the sand, and didn’t pay attention to what was happening at light speed as computers replaced stereos and TVs for many young people.

The industry answered largely by having its useless association, the RIAA, file lawsuits against several hundred individuals monthly they identified from a variety of online P2P websites. Here it is 2007, all the lawsuits have done nothing to decrease or diminish downloading in the consumers’ mindset, and this week, the RIAA is now riding into college campuses on white horses and trying to round-up all the “outlaws’ who are downloading illegally.

Again, complete failure of the music industry and its association to fully understand and comprehend what changes have occurred in technology in the past five years. There are intranets on almost all college campuses which cannot be tracked, and “darknets” all over the web that fly underneath all detectable online radar. If the industry and RIAA are cognizant of these facts, would they even bother to pursue action that has so far been as effective as the people who threw ice from the iceberg the Titanic hit, off the decks back into the ocean, thinking it might actually help the ship from sinking?

At the Digital Music Forum East conference in
New York recently, Greg Scholl, CEO of independent music label The Orchard said, ” The economics of the business are over for good and aren’t ever going to be the way they were before.”

Mr. Scholl has said it all in that sentence. Maybe, just maybe, someone in the industry heard those words and said it’s high time to “turn the page” and start lowering the lifeboats onto the seas of cyberspace before the ship (the industry) sinks in a sea of continued chaos.

Sattelite v Radio

The radio industry liked it when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabling widespread consolidation to take place. The NAB slipped the radio part of that legislation in through the back door. Wall Street embraced radio as never before. These guys loved it; now, the shoe is on the other foot.  The two — only two — satellite operators must be so sure they are going to get their merger approved that they have gone and announced it. Now those same consolidators who were looking for every reason to convince lawmakers, regulators, advertisers and the public that loosening up the restrictions would be good for everyone — well, they’re crying in their beer. In fact, they’re panicking. 

There is specific law that states XM and Sirius may never operate on a joint license, but FCC Chairman Martin says, “– well, the law — it can be changed.” The terrestrial radio interests defended by their version of the NRA — the NAB — is up in arms (I can’t believe I said that). Even though two satellite companies becoming one could look like, feel like and smell like a monopoly, it has an excellent chance — not a slam dunk — but, an excellent chance of being approved.Those fat cat radio consolidators don’t like it now when free markets work for their competitor. Actually, competitor is a bad word. Obsession is more like it. In today’s radio trades (including my favorite, Inside Radio) the satellite merger talk is all they can cover. Never mind that satellite radio has never hurt terrestrial radio for one second as much as terrestrial radio has hurt itself. 

We’re not rationale anymore (if we ever were). Turnabout is fair play. The satellite interests are now going to make the case that iPod, Internet and mobile entertainment is their competition so that merging the two satellite operators will really not be a monopoly. No reason for the DOJ to be concerned. Well, what’s wrong with that argument? It’s the same one Clear Channel made when it petitioned the FCC to allow further relaxation of radio ownership rules that would pave the way for terrestrial radio to become an even bigger monopoly than it presently is.

The only problem is: who is going to invest in a monopoly of radio stations to which the next generation is not listening. I can appreciate the egocentric aspects of our music related media, but with all due respect for all media moguls — they are the same things! Radio should be allowed to own more stations. Satellite should be allowed to have one company that owns all the stations. See what I mean? The Internet, iPods and mobile devices are radio’s chief competitors so, please regulators, let us expand our business so we can compete! The Internet, iPods and mobile devices are satellite’s chief competitors so, please regulators, let us expand — blah, blah, blah.  As the old saying goes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The only problem is this goose is cooked without a viable way to attract and hold the next generation — the people in college, young adults, military people returning home (safe and soon, hopefully). So, let everyone have their way. More stations for radio. One satellite operator that owns everything.In the end it won’t matter.  Consumers will end up paying higher prices without competition.  Satellite Radio is now entering the cable company’s territory; consumers will no longer have a choice of who they purchase their satellite radio from and the younger generations will figure out another way to get what they want.

Whose Trademark is it?

It appears that there is a new glitch in Apple’s IPhone saga.  Comwave a Candaian company is staking claim over the trademark stating that they have been using the trademark since 2004.  Candaian law would establish the trademark at first use however, Infogear, which was acquired by Cisco in 2000 was selling the product prior to the acqusition.  If it is shown that Infogear sold the Iphone in both America and Canada prior to 2004 then Comwave’s claim to the trademark will be incorrect and Cisco will most likely prevail.  It will be interesting to see how this all pans out between the two systems.   

Fair Use…

or is it an infringement that would never amount to any damages? What do you think?  And we thought our parents taking out pictures and home videos to show our boy/girlfriends was bad.  Today’s kids have no chance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ayk8xz5_A&eurl=

One more year!

I believe this is the most exciting news I have heard in a long time.  After the commercial that was aired last night by the NFL of its so hard to say good-bye and for some it is harder with Brett Favre appearing at the very end, Packers.com has announced that Brett Favre will be coming back for the 2007 season.  GO PACK GO!

 SJE