Or as the CORP. OF AMERICA allows them to do.
And how long before the chairman of Warner Brothers or Columbia Pictures or Disney becomes US President?
The installation of Big Arnie as California governor is not a coincidence. He/they would like for him to become US president, but he wasn't born there so it carboshes that idea. But it would surprise me none to see more media based identities entering politics.. to have bums on seats in Congress and the senate. Sure the entertainment industry has its lobbyists, but to actually have the ability to create/shape manufacture laws, even better.
As to the idea it is mostly the poor who download movies and music because they can't afford to buy it, my nephew (who used to do it) says that it is more the middle class and rich kids who download illegally. He says that of all his friends, it's the rich kids who do it the most, then his middle class friends, then his poorer friends lastly.
Of his poorer friends, he says, most of them cannot download anything, legally or otherwise, because they can't afford to buy a computer, or if they have a computer they can't afford an internet connection that would facilitate downloading anything of any size due to the quota system present here in Oz.
Still, these illegal downloaders are at the end of the piracy food chain, and in a sense, are the victims of an easy come easy go consumerist society that the corporations seeking to sue them in essence created. I'm not saying what they do is right, nor am I defending it, but I would have thought it more productive to go after the actual pirates who rip and upload the materials. As my nephew informs me, some of them are quite well known and even have a cult following, with their own file sharing sites, so why is it the industry is not going after them instead?
You don't stop a venomous snake biting you by cutting off its tail... and the same applies to illegal downloading. Cut off the snakes head, so to speak, and you stop 500, 000 file sharers dead in their tracks. So it begs the question: is it more profitable, when box office sales are way down due to the recession, for the entertainment industry to sue 500,000 illegal file sharers $1500 each... or to sue the individual entities who upload the files $150,000 each?
My guess is the greater return to the industry moguls would be to hit the illegal downloaders.... not so much to protect the artists and/or the creative forces who actually support/carry them, but to protect their own lavish and extravagant lifestyles.
It bears some thinking, and hopefully somebody in the US government will see sense... but I seriously doubt it. Politicians are not known to be blessed with sufficient grey matter, are they.