For 99% of router owners, that means for all intents and purposes, they give bandwidth to anyone who wants it within 50 meters. And those users will ALSO lead straight back to you.

As an artist, you need to wrap your head about the one fact which is important; you want to have as many people as possible listening to you, no matter the how. Once they do is when you get them swarming your concerts which is when you start seeing cash.

Now if you’d managed to sign with a label what you’d really have is a phat huge-arsed loan which your label would then spend to promote your image by much the same. Putting your music where everyone could see it, putting your posters up on every corner, etc…

And, of course, owning every last effort of yours all the way down to the odor of your farts for several years with no obligation to pay you back much of anything. You’d have a “retainer” consisting of high-interest loans and be hoping to hell you’d sell enough records to make the money back so you could get out of the indentured serfdom asap.

And if you’re one of the lucky 0,0001% you might manage, and get to be the next Lady Gaga.

Your problem is that since you aren’t Lady Gaga, gigs will be your bread-and-butter. Your fans will buy the CD’s you print and tickets to your gigs. Make it easy enough to get the records from Amazon and you might see sales there as well, as Trent Reznor did.

As a system administrator, I can tell you that securing any wifi router from unauthorized use by any teenager able to use google is close to impossible. I can do it only if I’m also willing to spend an hour a day maintaining my network.

The average wifi user is utterly unable to. What you are saying is, in essence, that the owner of a wifi would be accountable for actions taken by a third party which he or she is completely unable to prevent.

This is like saying that a gunowner should be accountable for murders committed with his gun even though he has it locked up in a state-of-the-art gun safe in an age where every citizen who wants to carries an industrial plasma torch.

In short, your wordwall tries to describe a situation where you got all the salient facts utterly wrong.

Your argument also fails regarding copyright, patents and trademark. Copyright and Patents are related and in most cases not only fail to fulfill their purpose but open a can of exploits rendering the “cure” far worse than the disease. Every serious student of patents – including Thomas Jeffersson who actually served some years as a patent board member – has come to the conclusion that patents, by and large, are unnecessary.

Which brings us to the second part – Trademark. Trademark only restricts you in one very major way – it prevents you from committing fraud when you claim that you represent another entity. Trademark is universally acceptable as reasonable, copyright and patents increasingly not.

However, pro-copyright trolls do keep on trying to mesh the two, concocting a soup called “Intellectual Property” containing one part truth – Trademark/Brand – and two parts utter garbage; Copyright and Patents.

In short, you DIDN’T get much of anything straight. I would advise some reading into the matter.

And secondly (although this may be guesswork), I believe the DMCA actually provides the accusers immunity against countersuits unless it can be proven that they were making a wrong accusation willfully.

Needless to say it’s quite hard to prove intent in such cases. At most the judge can dismiss the case.

Hence what must change is the wording of the DMCA, in particular the bit where a rights holder is exempted from having to provide actual proof which creates the entire “guilty-until-proven-innocent” paradigm under which most copyright cases hinge right now.