2008: How ROLLING STONE magazine Helped MUSIC PIRACY fester and grow

It seems insane now that ANYONE could say "sharing" music doesn't cause damage.

We know artists who are on GoFundMe because they aren't getting their royalties. We know hundreds of record stores went out of business because people were happy to get mp3 files FREE rather than pay for records (and extra cartridges and needles and a turntable). We know that the monsters who profited most from piracy involve organized crime, Russian scumbags, the Pirate Bay Swedish meatballs and Kim Dotcom, among others, all living like kings.

But in 2008? Rolling Stone was not only rating some of the blogs, but counseling people on how to avoid getting caught, and how to lobby politicians to make sure the Internet stays "FREE." About the only thing they didn't do, was repeat catch-phrases like "Freedom of Speech" and "copyright is copywrong."

It's a bit of an irony that soon after this, Rolling Stone began to sink, the number of physical copies on newsstands shrank, and they were offering up themselves up for sale. They went so far as to put the adorable-looking Boston Marathon Bomber on the cover, either as a provocateur move to get attention, or because Jann Wenner was smitten by his sexy looks. They've tried a "re-launch" recently on glossy paper, and continue to load up every issue with Jann Wenner's faves (boy band heroes who look like jailbait).

Unbelievable, that anyone with a brain could endorse copying copyrighted work and illegal distribution at grand larceny-level. This isn't copying off an album onto cassette for a friend. It's maniacs hell-bent on loading up their blogs with complete discographies, with the glory going to themselves and money too (via Paypal donations). Pure evil. What else do you call it, when bloggers relentlessly post and re-post and re-up and get new corrupt companies from Megaupload to Ydray to host the illegal files? EVIL. OK, add STUPIDITY. Add short-sighted idiocy. And then people wonder why Steve Miller, Carly Simon and so many others simply stopped making new albums. What the fuck for? So they can be embarrassed by low sales?

Rolling Stone. Who was editing the magazine in 2008? Benedict Arnold?

We know what happened.

A few lawyer-weasels found loopholes, insisting nobody could PROVE that their wonderful clients actually downloaded or uploaded anything. "Oh, your honor, somebody ELSE got into that house, used the computer, downloaded all those files...not MY client."

Other lawyer-weasels had other excuses: "Oh, your honor, don't sentence this fine, fine person to pay treble damages, or punitive damages, or ANY damages. At best, my client should ONLY be charged a dollar per song, which is all these files are worth."

With GOOGLE, owner of Blogspot, the prime offender, and now one of the most powerful companies in the world, the RIAA and record labels couldn't lobby politicians to pass strict laws blocking the Rapidshare and Megaupload companies. Besides, GOOGLE's partners in crime, like Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites thriving by not paying royalties for "fair use" (ha ha) photos and content, were behind the banner of "Freedom of Speech." Yeah, THAT'S THE TICKET, we should be able to use any photo, or any music, and USE it without paying anything. It's for "review purposes." It's "Freedom of Speech." And what's that phrase that the notorious PUZO.ORG forum likes so much? "WE LIKE FREE!"

Is it too late? Well, if "morality" means making sure Kevin Spacey doesn't make another movie, and Al Franken can't run for office again, then MAYBE, that same "morality" would apply to making sure the Internet is just a tad more LEGAL. Then again, didn't we just read about a Russian cartel that made $100 million by hacking into bank accounts in America and funneling all the money and then disappearing into their Iron Curtain caves, never to be prosecuted? Hell, stealing money is "Freedom of Speech" too.