SOPA Opera and The Anti-Music Media Bias

With piracy affecting all areas of commerce, why does it seem like only the music biz is whining? Well, because the main-stream media is only “reporting” about them and ignoring the massive extra-music industry support for SOPA. But why? Is SOPA really such a huge threat to media outlet’s revenue that they would sell-out on a Bill that is designed to keep themselves alive?

Moses Avalon

The other day I read a story about how the e-book trade is being rifled by piracy. The journalist postulated that the reason pirates have been ripping and burning e-books is because the public doesn’t want to pay the “high price,” offered by Kindle, Nook, Kobo, etc. A reader posting in the comments section sympathized, hoping that the “fledgling” e-book trade would not be too badly hurt by piracy. Then, a lawyer for a website that sells counterfeit designer-handbags and is presently under indictment, was quoted. He defended his client with intimations that the world is entitled to designer style without paying designer prices.

High prices causing piracy? Entitlement to quality goods and services? It all started to sound familiar. Where had I heard these defenses to theft before?

That’s it!! The music business! According to just about every paper and bloger, those bastards are charging $15 for one song. No, wait, it was $15 for 12-15 songs but only one song is good, right? No wait, it’s the record company’s greed that makes artists release only one good song on an album. Wait, I’m starting to get confused again, because someone smart once taught me that theft had little to do with the quality of content; people steal bad records too, right? (Brittany Spears was one of the most illegally downloaded artist, at one time.)

I thought theft was caused by a person not wanting to pay for something they perceive they have a need for, or a right to. Yeah, that rings true.

Now, can you imagine these same absurd arguments of “high price = theft” being printed about any other industry but music?

  • People are stealing food because the price is too high; when you think about all the food you throw out, or decide you don’t like, after you buy it, it’s a rip-off.



  • People are stealing movies because studios/theaters charge over $10 for a two hour experience, but there are usually only a few really good scenes in the movie, so it’s a rip-off.



  • And books… Don’t get me started. How can you justify charging $10 for an e-book containing 50,000 words when I only have time to read about half of them, and let’s be honest, I’m only going to like about one tenth of the book anyway. I mean, the Steve Jobs book didn’t have any pages that I’ll to want to re-read or experience over and over again like my porn and pulp novels, my The Godfather DVD, or… my entire music collection.


Yet, the main-stream press (and thus the public) seem far more sympathetic to the plight of most every other trade supporting SOPA than it has ever been to the record companies and their stable of artists. Why?The answer is simple, but not very uplifting.



Even though SOPA (which I’ll get to in a minute) will benefit all forms of media and Intellectual Property, the main-stream press can not seem to get past its hate of the music trade and the journalists who “work” in it, to report on this very important Bill accurately.

All you read is how the RIAA, the NMPA and the MPAA are sponsoring SOPA with unprecedented amounts of lobbying; but little to nothing about others backing the Bill: the pharmaceutical trade, designer clothing, major law firms representing big brands of all types and even an internet centered busines, GoDaddy (until they were bullied into changing their stand by tech companies. A virtual blackmail campaign that seems to have backfired in GoDaddy’s favor.)

Why do the papers hate us so much that they would shoot themselves in the foot, journalistic-wise?

Let’s take one at a time:

News media institutions hate major record labels for one simple reason– they buy virtually no advertising in newspapers or even on TV, like they did in the good-old-days. Yet, despite horrendous rape of their inventory have survived the internet transition better than the print news business and all without any help from them as an advertising platform and with their journalists pissing on our head the whole while.

Main-stream journalists despise music “journalists” because to a hard-boiled investigative reporter who meets sources in back alleys to get a scoop, music journalism seems like an overpaid high-school newspaper beat; going to concerts, hanging out with musicians and getting your ass kissed in exchange for a decent write-up.

Yep, if I were a New York Times reporter making something south of $80K a year I’d have nothing but contempt for their cooler-than-tho back-stage passes, designer swag bags and gifts from PR firms.

So, everybody in the media biz hates us, but they love our product enough to promote its theft under the bumper sticker “information should be free.”


I sat next to a 20-something, “SOPA is evil,” tech-employed hipster the other night at a poker table. He thought information should be free.

He was repeating the standard propaganda you read in all tech-rags, how SOPA is censorship and will destroy the internet. I managed not to puke on him but did politely ask, “Help me understand your view point, cause I don’t know much about this stuff; if information should be free, then why should I be paying ISPs for data charges?” He stumbled, “That’s different,” he said, “You’re dealing with lots of technology and infrastructure.”

Yep, that’s different, I guess, than spending hundreds of hours getting a song just right.

Anyone who thinks that SOPA, which simply gives content providers a slightly bigger stick when seeking court injunctions to defend their property, will destroy the internet, well… I think we can guess what that person is using the internet for. I’ve questioned many a person-on-the-street about SOPA. Without exception, all who oppose it have not read the Bill itself. (You can read it here.)

If they did, they would see the Bill clearly states that blocking counterfeit sites is only something a ISP is required to do if it’s “technically feasible” and reasonable. (Bottom of page 19 of the Bill.) This still leaves ISPs with an enormous amount of wriggle room.

SOPA does have its problems. Most of which will ironed out in the next draft. But when it passes (and it’s a safe bet that it will) it will not destroy the internet or free speech any more or less than FCC regulation has “destroyed” cable TV or radio. History has proven that a little bit of regulation changes very little. Humans find a way to say what they want.

What SOPA will do is cost ISPs a lot of cash to be compliant. Which means this is not a philosophical argument, but a financial one.

The rest of the “censorship” claims are window-dressing. What the tech-biased, music-biz hating media, pandering to their advertising clients don’t want you to know, is that most people do not use the internet to find/steal/share entertainment content illegally or legally. According to studies, most people use the net mostly for:

1) Shopping.
2) Finding restaurants.
3) Finding dates, their friends, and finally…
4) Cloud storage.


And that is what the ISPs are really, secretly afraid of and why they are fighting SOPA, ACTA, et al with threats, boycotts and thuggery instead of logical arguments.

It’s not because the internet will end if they have to take a little bit of responsibility re: piracy. It’s because if laws make ISPs liable for piracy, and they are forced to filter many P2P sites and forgo profits from advertizing such sites, then it will reveal to the public what the internet really is to MOST of us: a communication service. A simple, electronic, hi-tech yellow pages and Post Office replacement. Not the sexy entertainment hub and you-can-get-anything-your-heart-desires dream-box the Valley Lords wish it to be.

And if that happens then the Tech Gods will have to come to grips with the fact that they are not the new Les Paul. They are just the new Thomas Edison.

Why they are not happy with that probably goes back to a junior high-school trauma about losing a chick to a jock or a musician.

Sorry Valley Lords, I know you want to be cool like us. But you are not. You’re cool in your own way and this year Congress will prove it to you.

See you in court.

Mo Out

PS: If you’re new to the SOPA debate, here’s a pretty balanced (lightly anti-leaning) CNET piece that explains the issues with some great links.

And here is a great piece by very a clear thinker, Chris Castel, on a recent debate regarding pirating or, “rough sites,” as they are referred to in this debate.

And for a truly absurd “Conspiracy theory” about how media companies want people to steal their inventory, read this one on, of all places, Forbes. (Shame.)



Download my new free iThing App:  MyRecord Deal:  The Moses Avalon Royalty Calculator. Stop getting played and find out what you are really owed and how to properly budget your next recording. Read the review on Digital Music News.


40 responses to “SOPA Opera and The Anti-Music Media Bias”

  1. Matt says:

    If censorship of the entire Internet is what it takes for the majors to stay alive, then it’s well past time that they die. Maybe then you could even get a real job.

    • Moses Avalon says:

      It’s always nice to hear from my more mature readers who can respond dispationtly and inteligently.

    • That old chestnut! What a pathetic lot of arguments you free culture people have. Last time I checked we lived in a democracy where we are all free to choose our own careers.

      A real job is what we choose to do to make a living. Matt, you have no right to tell me or anyone else how to make a living, and I will return the favor by not telling you how you should make your living.

      If in my chosen career I am not talented enough to sell what I create, or I am trying to sell it at more than its perceived worth, and nobody buys it, then that’s just tough. Like in any other business I’d need to improve.

      However, If in my chosen career I can’t make a living because my work is being stolen by pirates then that’s just plain wrong. No one has the moral or legal right to take something that’s on sale and not pay for it.

      Now we must address your other statement – “Censorship of the entire internet”! What utter garbage! Matt, please go read the Bill, its here –

      – or if that’s too much read this detailed summary of its provisions issued today by the US Copyright Office –

      Then, when you have some specific criticism about particular clauses make your points. But maybe you just want all your entertainment for free. Sorry Matt, you have no right to be entertained for free. Grow up.

  2. Ambrose says:

    How can you write “according to just about every single paper and blogger”? You are a blogger, and I blog so you could call me one too, but neither of us is claiming that “those bastards are charging $15 for one song”. I blog on a network where yesterday someone just posted asking why no one on the entire blog network has blogged about SOPA. In fact I have never seen a SINGLE blog post making such a ridiculous claim.

    Also, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist is also a blogger; I’ll need a lot of convincing if you claimed that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    • Moses Avalon says:

      Y’know, it’s unfortunate that with all the interesting points that are being made in this piece, you’ve chosen to criticize a euphemism of my writing style.

      It’s true, I don’t read every single blog, but i do read a lot. This is what my gut told me. I apologize for not being an avid reading of your blog, but i already read about twenty a week. The “every single” is an expression. I don’t think anyone who reads my work with an IQ over 95 really thinks that I’ve read every single blog and paper and am reporting a hard fact. But just in case they did, it’s now clear that i am only referring to my own reading experience.

      I hope we can now move on to more in-depth criticisms of the piece.

      • Ambrose says:

        Why would anyone read my blog? I don’t expect anyone to read mine. The fact remains that I have not seen a single blog post anywhere that links “expensive music” to SOPA opposition.

        But that’s beside the point. Ok, let’s start somewhere else. How about explaining why Michael Geist’s arguments against SOPA are invalid?

        • Moses Avalon says:

          Im not sure this is hte forum to go point for point with, with anyone but my readers. Make your arguments.

          • Moses Avalon says:

            Well, this one is pretty easy. Geist is vetting the finanials, not the principals of the Bill. He’s saying that the entertianment industry is using inflated numbers to poject its losses. But even if he is rright, it does not change the undrlying legal principal that is at issue.

            In short, his agrument is equvilant to saying something like, “the Holocuast didnt happen or isnt’ important beceuse the numbber of Jews killed by Nazis is not verifed and porbably exagerated.

            It’s not a stong place to argue from becuase most would agree that even if only 3,000,000 jews were killed, its still a Holocaust.

          • Ambrose says:

            That is absolutely not what he says. It is unfortunate that he has added a comment about the financials at the top, but that has nothing to do with his position. Go to the bottom and read what he REALLY says about it.

            SOPA opposition has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the financials.

          • Moses Avalon says:

            Okay, this my last responce to you, b/c i went the extra yard and scroled down and read what you are calling “arguments.” but they are not. The botom of the link you sent me is simply his analisys of the Bill’s jurisdiction. He claims the wording of SOPA would connect the protection of US-based IP to US foregin polocy. I agree. Je’s roght. But that is not an arugment againt SOPA, sir. It’s an argument in favor of it.

          • Ambrose says:

            If that’s what you think then I have nothing to say. Nothing will make you understand why some people oppose SOPA and why financials or piracy has nothing to do with it.

          • Moses Avalon says:

            Yes, i welcome a vaild argument. The problem is i have yet to hear one that is not filled with retoric.

            I suspect that you have not actually read the Bill itself or do not really understand how the law works, if you have. Bad Bills get passed all the time. If they turn out to be unenforcable or untennable they are repealed. Such may be the case with SOPA. if so, then all this banter is for nothing. If the ISPs can not comply the law will be changed or revoked. Simple as that. So don’t stess out. In the mean time, go read the Bill, there are not a lot big words in it, so you should be fine.

  3. Kat Caverly says:

    I just googled “$15 for one good song” and the results remind me that we really do live (and work) in the “Copy Culture”.

    Moses I am sure that you have already read Robert Levine’s “Free Ride”. After reading it in late November I was filled with the hope that the free ride may be ending soon.

    I would love to hear your take on how the DMCA “Safe Harbor” inspire the creation of the business model that allows legal websites to profit from copyright infringement (yup I am talking about YOU YouTube too).

  4. Andy Stienborn says:

    A long time ago someone told me that you don’t value anything that you get for free and I believe that’s true.  To me, artistic freedom is generated by an artist being able to support themselves from the sale of their work.  By being able to sustain the necessities of life from the sale of their “goods”,they’re able to have the time to work, think and contribute.   They successfully replaced the “day gig” by supplying the rest of us with valuable content whether it be intellectual or recreational.  I don’t see the difference between major corporations filing patents on ideas, machinery, processes, drug formulas and a thousand other things that fill their coffers and why it’s wrong for an artist (in any medium) to have the same right.  I recently put a music video up on facebook and I looked through thousands of photos to accompany the message I wanted to convey.  Every photo that was owned by a major news network would have cost thousands of dollars to secure and made producing the video impossible.  As a result, I did use some photos from public domain and credited the photographers as they requested, in the hopes their work would be seen and they might be contacted for other opportunities and I gave the proper respect to their work.  An artistic community needs to be sustained.  If I have to pay to use the creative inventions of others like the telephone, the Ipad, my new 4s Iphone then my equation of benefit vs. cost is complete.  I purchase music, I pay a cover charge for live music to support the entertainers.  I pay Mac Pro Video every month because they’re the best tutoring operation on the planet and if I had to pay for my subscription to Moses Avalon, I would because I perceive that while I’m in my studio writing that he’s on the front lines holding people accountable, not keeping his mouth shut and working for the protection and preservation of music and art.

  5. Thanks for this article. The interwebz are packed full of anti SOPA stuff, and it’s nice to read the other side of the story. A part of me is looking forward to seeing how SOPA will affect our industry, but a part of me is worried about the broader implications. Namely, how the gov’t can use this law to censor websites that it simply doesn’t like. The protection this law might provide seems enticing, but Ben Franklin’s well known quote on trading liberty for security keeps on popping into my mind whenever I read about SOPA. What do you think about this part of the issue?

    • Moses Avalon says:

      SOPA is a B2B Bill. The Government can not decide to shut anything down on a whim, the way so many anti-SOPA sites state. It first must have a complaint from a US company and a court order, which means the complaining party needs to first make a case and win thier argument. Then there are a seris of back and forths where the two parties try to medeaite. If nothing hapens then the DOJ will step in and insist that teh isp block the site. HTe ISP then has a seris of steps they can take to object.

      So, you see this is hardly the smash and grab Bill that the anti-SOPA retoric is cliaming.

  6. Cath says:

    Moses, I’m astonished at you’re lack of understanding. This bill is about so much more than piracy and some $’s lost by those old boys who can’t keep up or change their business models.

    If you’re going to spew this kind of misinformation then yes, you absolutely need to go point for point with your readers.

    I’m guessing Ambrose is actually one of your readers, else he wouldn’t be here commenting on your post!

    • Moses Avalon says:

      Yes, i belive he is. What i was telling him (and you) is that i would rather go point for point with one of HIS (or your) arugments, rather than a professor, who is 1) not here to explain his opinions and 2) not one of my readers.

      If you go back and read my respons to “” more carfully you’ll see that that is what i meant. He elected NOT to put forth an orignial argument but rather one of his professor, who is not one of my readers.

      Now… If you feel i am giving misinformation here, then state the exact nature of the spcifics and i will try to address it.

  7. Osiris Munir says:

    This is an outrage, and should be handled, in my humble opinion as Murder in the 1st Degree. Artists are initially in a no win position with the majors, starting with what is and is not allowed on radio and other broadcast mediums. Thus the clean and dirty versions of hip hop, rap and rock…edit run buck wild on the net.
    By the way, excellent link to the breakdown by CNET who painfully cast the truth to the boys on the ground, about SOPA. The various government orgs who govern content and ISP regulations have yet to ahve a legitimate argument, called, Why The Hell Not? It is a lot of information to absorb and would have to be carefully be pondered upon to know how it would further decline industry net circles who are dependent upon content. That content can be streamed, piped, etc…the net clearly can’t travel to the golf course and have a drink with prestigious members of the RIAA or certain nano factors of Google. the big bad net has opened an unimaginable portal for streams of info geared toward eyeballs, who upon seeing a brightly colored candy wrapper, WILL BUY….

  8. Andy Steinborn says:

    Back to the ” information is free” bumper sticker. Why do we have to pay for college and what is up with this place called Harvard? Why do they charge more than SUNY? it’s all just information isn’t it? If we argue that facilities must be maintained and that teachers should be paid then we have to accept the base that intellectual information comes with a price. That price extends to the artist whatever arena they function in. When you see a work of art in a gallery and decide it would look great hanging in your home, you purchase it. When you hear great music that you’d like to access and listen to at your leisure, you buy it. period! I always thought value given for value received was a basis premise of a healthy, functioning society. I perceive the problems related to this are at a more basic level and lay more at the feet of our people and their values than our technology

    • Moses Avalon says:

      I have lectured at many colleges, conventions and luncheons and to my eyes it seems like the vast majority of copy-leftists are rebelious men in thier early to late 20s, ignorant about property (because they have little) and apprehensive about their financial future (because of the recession). Women seem more conservative about this issue, prehapes becaues they have had to work through years of discrimination to achive “equality” and apreciate its rewards (property). It’s just a guess, but it’s this observation that gives me hope that we, as a society, will grow past the “info should be free” rhetoric in a few years. Women are generally more pratical and survival oriented. One can not survive in America without a sense of property. Sad but true.

  9. […] you read the SOPA bill? What are your thoughts? Find out what Moses says about SOPA and post your ideas in […]

  10. Daniel says:

    The entire entertainment industry has only itself to blame for the state of piracy. It’s taken 15 years of me using the internet to get services like netflix, spotify etc. If they think SOPA is going to help them then they’re dumber than they look. Censorship does not work, it will only drive piracy further underground. The technology is already there to get around any sort of geographical web block, it doesn’t take a genius to find a proxy to change their IPs location to one that is not on the block list, and the tech will only get easier to use as time goes by. You’re also ridiculously naive if you think SOPA won’t be abused.

    I think it’s knee jerk to say people turn to piracy because of the cost, I’d say it’s more to do with quality. Has no one thought that the reason that sales etc are down is because they’re releasing the same old garbage constantly? If people find something they love, they will pay for it. Whether it’s going to a gig, buying a t-shirt, getting the computer game or anything related. Piracy is nothing compared to the people who spend nothing because there is nothing worth their hard earned money.

    • Moses Avalon says:

      “I think it’s knee jerk to say people turn to piracy because of the cost, I’d say it’s more to do with quality. Has no one thought that the reason that sales etc are down is because they’re releasing the same old garbage constantly?”

      Well, this is a new theory, indeed. People are not stealing because the price is high, they are stealing b/c they already have the product or one very close to it. Interesting.

      • Daniel says:

        I should’ve elaborated that I guess. Just because the big labels, studios etc aren’t getting the sales they think they should, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s because people are pirating. There’s plenty of films and albums out there not making any money because they’re bad. Nothing more. They’re crap. Just blaming piracy is narrowminded. People will pay for what they see fit.

        • Moses Avalon says:

          I don’t think anyone is saying that the studios are losing money ONLY b/c of piracy. (In fact they didn’t lose any money last year at all.) They are saying that piracy is damaging the economy of ALL intellectual property.

          I don’t think you read the article above very well. Go back and read it gain. The point I’m making is that the entertainment industry is only ONE aspect of SOAP. Bad pharmaceuticals is another. And that is no joke. Its potential to KILL people is real. But the media only seems to equate pro SOPA with entertainment, when the truth is that they are only one proponent of it.

    • Moses Avalon says:

      “The entire entertainment industry has only itself to blame for the state of piracy.”

      Yes, I suppose if your friend got beat up in a bar it would be his fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not carrying a gun or working out more to defend himself. Eh?

      I don’t know what you do for work but I’m guessing that you don’t own very much stuff or have never invested your life savings in a business, only to have some young hipster tell you to “Change everything quickly, or I’m going to put you out of business by letting people steal from you with impunity.”

      I hope it never happiness to you, but actually I sorta hope it does in a way, just to show you how it can feel.

      • Daniel says:

        No, if my friend got beat up in a bar it would be bad luck. Or maybe he ran his mouth off and deserved it. Either way he wouldn’t have 20 years to decide whether he wanted to stay in the bar, or maybe go to a restaurant up the road to avoid said fight. It’s embarrassing how long it’s taken the majors to catch up to technology. The greatest technological advance for the last 50 years (arguably ever) comes along and no one even attempts to take an initiative to take the industry forward. Business models change constantly. If I was using a 20 year old business model today in any industry I’d be up shit creek too. Fortunately I have a bit of sense and intelligence so my business is absolutely fine 😉

        • Moses Avalon says:

          Yes, and if what you just wrote above as a foundation was true, I’d agree with your conclusion. But it’s not. The truth is the media companies (including music) responded far faster than most other industries (Anyone you know use the paper to find an apartment or a used car lately?). For a more well rounded perspective on why it took the labels “so long” to come around, read this.

          It might just give you a better view on the IP business.

          • Daniel says:

            All that artical says to me is that the labels would not change their business model, ripped off a lot of artists in the transition to digital formats, so bang went any trust they may have had. They’ve basically dug their own graves and are now clawing at the mud walls in the middle of monsoon. Tech companies didn’t need to make out record companies are bad guys, they did that themselves. And they wonder why hardly anyone has any sympathy. The majors wrecked it for every other label with their selfishness. It’s not like it’s anything new though. The music industry seems to love shitting on it’s own doorstep.

          • Moses Avalon says:

            Daniel, my son, you are lost if that is all you got from that article. Or, you’re just too young to understand. Come back in a few years when you’ve got some real business experience under your belt and read it again. Corporations are not race cars. They have stock holders to deal with and in the case of major labels 1000s of artists as well. They can not just decide to abandon a business model and a contract because something new comes along. Their artists would sue them. Don’t’ you see that?

  11. Carlos Ferguson says:

    I think that even though “Stop Online Piracy Act” is a good thing from a general business perspective (example Music business, which is the one I personally practice), at the end of the day it will be a joke. Say a joke because at present the US government does not have the manpower to go after and prosecute every single event dealing with the “Stop Online Piracy Act”. An excellent example is the adverse effect the infamous “payola” takes on an independent artist or independent record label. The US government graciously has indicted a few radio stations with the Payola Statute, but at the end the companies pay the settlement fee and continue to buy airplay. Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that Major record labels were some of the “pushers” for the “Stop Online Piracy Act”. So if this were to be the case, it is totally Ironic that the same Major record labels are the ones sponsoring the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, as they are the major pirates in the Industry; ah and not forgetting one of my favorites Latin Music Award show, The Latin Grammys, headed by Mr Gabriel Abaroa, who is the chief of Wireless Latin Entertainment (Wilaen), a Florida Company who has been noted to promote a lot of presenting/performing artists of the Latin Grammys.
    I think is worth mentioning this because The Latin Grammys have their own “payola-style”. I read an interest article written by, I believe a “lunatic” which says a lot of things. He even quoted you, Moses !
    I think the SOPA statute intention is good, but I have my doubt it will work.

    • Moses Avalon says:

      The music industry (RIAA) is only one of many, many, many, many trade orgianizatios that support SOPA. What the main steam press is leaving out of most every one of thier artilces is that Big Pharma is a main pusher of this agenda becaues most of the “rough sotes” being targeted by SOPA are selling fake Viagra and other drugs that infrige on thier patents.

      Why are the papers ignoring this fact? Well, becaues Big Phara are also big advertizers in thier magizieens, websites, etc. So, rather than throw a big sponcor into all this unpopular ledgeslation, they lay it at our feet, as if we are the only benificiaries and the only suporters. Niether is even close to the truth.

  12. Carlos Ferguson says:

    thanks !

  13. You, sir, are an idiot that only uses the internet to post your shitty songs to You are obviously angry about your failed music career and want to blame it on the nerds who started wikipedia and facebook. Go work at Starbucks full time instead of part time and start a real career cause whatever you’re doing isn’t working.

  14. Dennis Dreith says:

    Regarding the Wikipedia blackout, my take away from this is that Wikipedia, Google and the lot of them are saying that they are fine with distributing stolen goods and want to continue to be able to do so. The hue and cry from the uniformed public is almost as disturbing as the pandering to them from the majority of the politicians who are jumping ship in droves. I can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would think it would be OK if Wal-Mart was selling stolen property, or thinks that laws against distributing stolen property diminishes our rights and civil liberties. However, we still seem to have a large segment of our population that thinks it is OK to steal someone’s intellectual property. Nothing in SOPA will prohibit any artist or owner of intellectual property from distributing their product (including giving it away for free if they choose), and only blocks foreign rogue sites from distributing stolen property. If Wikipedia, Google, etc., were interested in fairness and in being responsible members of the community, they would work with congress to address any legitimate concerns they have, which I know first- hand that several legislators are quite willing to do.

  15. […] can read Moses’ full article on SOPA “SOPA Opera and the Anti-Music Media Bias” here on his blog Moses […]

  16. Naturally I like your web site, but you need to take a look at the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very silly to tell you. On the other hand I will definitely come again again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.