how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

but what purpose do the publisher's serve if not the interests of the artists? Why is it perceived that by "stealing" music you're stealing from the artist? In truth (I believe) it's the publishers who are loosing a proportionately much larger piece of the pie since most of their profit is gained from CD sales while artists make most of their money through concerts, advertising, and direct sales.

It has long seemed to me that the relationship between artists, their publishers, and their customers is a lot like the one we have nationally between private enterprise, the government, and the taxpayers. It's a giant tail wagging the dog scenario and I think that the public is finally having enough of that shit, in both cases. It is costing us all a lot more for what? Extra bureaucracy? wtf. fucking bs.

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

bla bla bla angry snarl bla

all i'm doing is listening to a few mp3s. say what you will, your opinion matters little to me. i'm not at war with anyone, all i have is peace and love, man.

[DarkKnightJared]

Originally Posted by yoav

itunes? ipods these days have a 120GB capacity. that's $30,000 to fill it up at the itunes store at 99c/song. apple markets ipods to teenagers. most people, teenagers especially don't spend 30 grand on music. Apple and the ipod is a driving force in the pirating movement.

To be fair, though:

Music Downloads, MP3 Downloads, MP3 songs, from eMusic.com

[EastTexas]

I guess I'm the first "piece of shit" as stated earlier to admit I have downloaded music that I don't own. Only piece of shit on these forums I guess.

At $80K per song I probably owe RIAA about $2million.
At $250K per DVD I probably owe MPAA $200 million in DVD's I've rented and copied.

Might as well make it 780 babillion thousand million cause I'll never be able to pay it.

Oh and if RIAA or MPAA is reading this, those are made up, no one here steals things for real.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

even shitty dane cooks can make it big via social networking. he used one of many more appropriate models for artists to get exposure and the only talent it required was internet access.

Did he self-publish his CDs, you stupid shit?

No he did not.

Originally Posted by yoav

radiohead and merit are already starting to test the waters and so are other bands, even metallica admitted that they went after napster not because they were on that side of the fence, but because they felt there were other artists that were and felt the conversation/debate/war/whatever should have a strong voice on both ends to make real change and have real impact.

Who got Radiohead the exposure they have? Who hasn't gotten Merit the exposure they don't have? Hmmm....

Originally Posted by yoav

there are tons of bands that have record deals and have a hard time getting exposure still, your argument doesn't hold, and you're comparing the system to a still new revolution in how we regard and manage the arts and creative thought.

That's a fucking stupid point, concocted by a stupid mind.

Of course bands that have record deals don't always succeed; that's because bands need to be good and have a record deal to make name for themselves. But the fact is good bands, the bands we want to hear, are the ones that need record labels.

As I said, the only people who are revolting are thieves, not artists. There's a reason every time people mention free songs the same handful of bands is mentioned. Because only a handful are doing it.

Originally Posted by yoav

the concept that i can write a poem on my blog(mine's actually cc licenced but if it wasn't) and if i see you wrote a similar poem that afternoon and can prove you visited my site SUE you and take your money for STEALING my IDEA is ridiculous, and while I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does at this point, the system NEEDS to change. the concept NEEDS to change.

No, the system doesn't need to change.

You've decided the system must give you free shit. Fuck you. You're owed nothing.

Originally Posted by yoav

that change is taking place right now, the guys from thepiratebay.org are being sued, they just appealed and in sweden the pirate party won a seat in the EU. Most green parties also support filesharing as part of their platform. even the itunes store itself was a big step, the idea that you can buy just one song and choose the quality you want it as. take a look at what creativecommons.org is doing. and open source. it's all branches off the same movement.

it's not about stealing vs. not stealing at this point, it's about a renaissance in the arts to suit our current culture and technology. record companies aren't interested in art. they're interested in putting out infomercials and making a profit. you can get kicked out of university for writing an essay that's simliar to what someone else wrote even if you thought of it by yourself because our thoughts are restricted by the man, you're not free to express your thoughts. ideas are intangible and have no intrinsic value.

Guess what: artists are looking to make a profit too. If they weren't, THEY WOULDN'T BE ASKING YOU FOR MONEY.

Why is it record labels are the only industry vilified for making a profit? Everything you buy puts profit in somebody's hand. Welcome to capitalism, you socialist bitch. I hope Uncle Sam rapes you with his lawsuit-hard-on.

Originally Posted by yoav

i counter this with the kind of person that's spending close to 30 grand on music would by higher bitrate files which cost more than 99c, and that the ipod has a feature where you can have way more songs on your computer and just sync the ones you want to take with you. storage space is irrelevant now, it's ubiquitous, they just found out how to fit 4TB into a square inch with carbon nanorods and iron atoms, the point was how they market storage space.

"hey average consumer, you could fit thirty thousand songs on this device" the next natural step for a comsumer, even one that doesn't pirate is to say "cool how do i get 30,000 songs?". they want you to fill up your ipod so when they bring out 40,000 song capacity you want and need it. which will be in a few months, did you buy your biannual 10,000 songs from the itunes store.

You're fucking insane. You're not owed 30,000 songs because you bought an iPod. You paid $250 for a fucking iPod and that's it. If you can't afford to fill it up with legally purchased songs, DON'T BUY A FUCKING IPOD.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

you made a lot of invalid points. but i've clearly never looked at it from your angle before, i'm a stupid shit. and a communist. and i shouldn't buy things. it's a shame you can't read though or you'd see what i was talking about, and it's a shame you don't know fuck all about the industry or copyright law or i'd actually be able to discuss this with you. like i said before i don't know everything but i do know that you're incredibly ignorant. it's blatantly obvious in your self contradiction and unnecessary swearing and name calling. good luck living in the box people put you in, i'm sure it's nice and cozy. underneath it all i too wish i couldn't think for myself like you and could derive comfort and security from the lies i'm breast fead by big mother corporation and big daddy government. make change? a ripple in established corrupt ideals? why make a sound, the people in charge are there because they're honest and just, not because sheep like you let them dictate what life should be like and who put a price and a tax on thought.

Music isn't thought, you thief. It's a product that is being sold, and you are stealing it.

It's a shame you don't know anything about producing anything that anyone ever values.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

excuse me, the above quoted statement is too similar to my own quoted just above that. i'm sueing you for 500 babbilion dollars, or whatever you have. if you don't want to go through years of legal battles i'm rational enough to settle for $5000. good day. you criminal.

Isn't it funny how you had to twist this argument into one about the finer points of copyright infringement, rather than flat-out intellectual property theft?

No one produced a thing in the lawsuit I am talking about, and that you posted about, except the artists that were stolen from.

You can't possibly try to say that the work someone puts into creating a song needs to be given to you for free, unless you are an insane person.

Originally Posted by yoav

i know what it is currently regarded as by a big company, the point is that it shouldn't be, and isn't by mainstream society. poor browneyedbitch didn't even know she was a criminal. that's not right or fair. the current model is not enforceable nor does it make any sense.

So, essentially, if everyone in America agrees your life is worthless, and all your shit is worthless, we have a right to kill you and take your stuff?

What isn't right or fair is theft. The current model makes complete sense.

YOU DON'T GET THINGS FOR FREE.

IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO PAY MONEY FOR IT.

WOW, THAT'S SO OUTDATED. I DON'T EVER ENCOUNTER THAT IN DAILY LIFE.

Originally Posted by yoav

impenetrable ignorance doesn't usually come from nowhere, it's the kind of thing you decide to commit to one day when your wife leaves you for a black dude or something, did you have a band once that didn't make it and are looking for a reason? don't take it too hard it's a statistical game, move on.

I've never been in a band, you worthless fuck.

I value music, and pay for music, and support artists. You have no respect for art, and thus you do not give it any value.

Name one band that has made enough money to live off of their music, but have never put a price tag on their CDs.

[Cretaceous Bob]

You're wittier in one line than yoav has ever been in any of his disjointed ramblings.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

i know what it is currently regarded as by a big company, the point is that it shouldn't be, and isn't by mainstream society. poor browneyedbitch didn't even know she was a criminal. that's not right or fair. the current model is not enforceable nor does it make any sense.

I wouldn't fall under the same argument. If anything, I'd be grandfathered. But I also was not distributing. The digital era puts a different spin on everything.

Bob's right. It's really is as clear as day that downloading music you did not pay for, or pay for the subscription to the sharing service for, is stealing. Everyone keeps trying to justify it by saying it's there, so why not take it? No one wants to be branded a theif because it seems so petty.

Have I done it in the past? Yes. I wanted particular old or obscure songs, went to itunes, didn't see them there, then tried limewire. I have done that for maybe 20 songs in my life. I am a scumbag for doing it. But had itunes had it first, I would have bought it.

[BrownEyedBtch]

I don't believe namecalling really solves anything either, but I don't speak for Bob, and I glaze over it. In any case, I disagree that the system needs to change. I think the system does not match the convenience of getting what we want with the touch of a button, and that's not the fault of the system. The system has to play catch-up to the convenience of technology, which makes it look like people are getting screwed by being fined $80K per download. Just because it's possible does not mean it's acceptable. I don't worry about who does it because I don't control what others do, and I don't have to live with their consequences.

Honestly, all forms of art are suffering in the digital era. For example, I don't have a lot of money, but I wanted to put some fun art on my walls. I would love to have paintings, but cannot afford them. Instead, I googled travel pictures from all over the world, used my computer to turn them into sepia tones or black and white, then printed and framed them. Is that stealing? Probably. That photographer wanted to take pictures to sell them, but I downloaded them to put them on my wall on my own. If I had the money to buy the original print, I would have. I am just as much a scumbag as the next person, even if it's not music.