ASCAP (founded 1914) was still created after the invention of the Vinyl Record. The assorted Media Foundations were built out of a necessity for managing and facilitating widespread distribution of a new technology that was too expensive for individuals to handle on their own without a way to spread the costs to a wider group (kinda like the insurance model, the wider you disburse your costs, the cheaper a product is for all involved). You first need the recording technologies in place for that to be a viable business.

Before records the way music was reproduced and distributed was through sheet music, which was handled by the Newspaper and Book Publishing houses. Back then performances were done by local live musicians or the original wandering musician/composers. Live performance royalties at that time were paid for in the purchase of the sheet music.

Fast forward to now and distribution has become so cheap that it's easily managed and facilitated by the individual without having to rely so much on a large corporation to get a name out there. The Media Companies have outlived their usefulness, just as many newspaper publishers have had to shutter their doors with the advent of Internet News when they couldn't move to the new model fast enough. There may be one way the media corps can save themselves from complete extinction, but it would mean completely changing the model they've used since their inception over 100 years ago: Drop the need to own the music and personas and help people develop a public sellable image. Good luck with convincing them of that.

There's also the fact that she very likely was coached by her son's Lawyer/Public Defender to make that statement. Whether or not she really believes it, the public will never know...

...until she releases her book a year after the case is settled.

Because the labels are so very good at making sure that songs stay musically original.

No they didn't. Media companies didn't exist before Records. Universal Music Group didn't exist before 1934 (as Decca Records). Vinyl Records were invented in 1881. Audio radio broadcasting didn't take off until the 20's. Basically, the media companies were born from these technologies, therefore they did nothing before these technologies existed. Now the Internet has started pushing the media companies into irrelevance and they feel the noose closing around their necks. They're having trouble finding new talent that want to sign with them because YouTube and Patreon and others have already performed the massive distribution for these artists without signed in blood contracts that Lucifer would be proud of. Every distribution mole Media Companies try to whack down, two more pop up, and the spring on the original mole recoils back harder causing the corps to hit themselves in the head with the mallet each time. They're finding that when both their former customers AND people with talent that's worth anything want nothing to do with them it's getting more and more difficult to survive.

Hopefully they'll find out sooner than later that they can't.

I should have probably mentioned in my other post on this level that my experience is meant as an agreement to the parent and giving a baseline datapoint of the minimum level that one must meet to be considered a real answer that shows Open Drivers on ATI/AMD can outperform the Open nouveau driver on nVidia, given that AMD's proprietary offering could not beat an equivalent nVidia offering (according to Tom's Hardware) using the open offering on my system, and was torn to shreds using nVidia's proprietary offering.

Single data point, personal experience anecdotal and all that jazz, but:

In my Linux Desktop rig (Mint 17 Desktop) I've run an ATI R9 270 using Catalyst and an nVidia GeForce 760 using nouveau and CUDA (not at the same time); I've been a lot happier with the GeForce with the nouveau drivers than the performance out of the Radeon. Also, installing the CUDA drivers to take advantage of the parallel compiling/processing has taken the performance through the roof and IMHO blew away the 270. The nVidia ran cooler when 100% pegged never even reaching 60C (usually topped off at 56-58C) where the R9 would easily reach 70-80C under load, occasionally maxing out at 85C. Blender-Renders using the Cycles engine and CUDA drivers also took about 3/4-7/8 of the time to render a scene than the ATI would... if and when I could get Blender to recognize the OpenCL drivers for GPU processing on the ATI.

To summarize, in my experience nVidia/Intel has just been a more stable and more powerful platform than the recent AMD/ATI offerings. Yeah, you pay more, but there's a lot more value when high end processing matters. It's a shame too. For the 2000's we were an AMD house, and we were happy with what we got. For the higher price of Intel at the time, there just wasn't the performance gain to justify it over AMD; unlike now. The next AMD system we built in 2011 as an HTPC wound up being an unstable heap under Windows and Linux. Unless AMD can suddenly get its shit together in the next year or two, it looks like at least the 2010's are gonna be owned by Intel/nVidia.

Actually Vice Versa. Premera got hacked long before Anthem; Anthem just didn't have nearly as much time between breach and releasing the fact to the public as Premera did.

kill -9!!! Kill -9!!!! Why isn't it working!?!?!? Where's the Parent!? KILL THE PARENT PROCESS!!! NOW!!!!

If it weren't for the AC my "Days since last Sarkeesian Incident" counter would still be counting, instead of writing 68 to the database and resetting to 0.