More ramblings in search of a theme.
I have had several album covers removed from Wikipedia, and several artist portraits removed from Wikipedia because these images are theoretically copyrighted. There is a Fair Use provision in most of these things but the powers that be at Wikipedia err on the side of caution when it comes to hosting images.
Or they are copyright Nazis (another way to look at it).
Which is really stupid because posting an album description without the cover is lame, as is an article about a musician without a picture. Who is going to object to its non-commercial use?
I had similar problems with Discogs.com which is run by a cabal of brain-dead morons. Some of their decisions went beyond unfathomable.
Dimeadozen is a website devoted to file sharing, mostly bootleg music. Apparently they have a very strict policy against sharing anything that's been commercially released -- even if it's no longer available. Despite being the premier site for illegal (unauthorized) bootlegs.
The internet kicked the bottom out of the porn industry. Porno DVDs and magazines cannot compete with amateurs putting up their pictures and movies for free. Even the stigma of being in a porno seems to be receding.
Album sales (CDs and LPs and even downloads) are way down. Apparently kids these days see no reason to buy music when everything can be streamed online. Same for movies to a large extent. Industry Polyannas predict the end of the world.
Home 
