how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

you have no idea what I do, don't pretend that you do. I'd be happy to talk about it, but don't assume you know me. You are such a cliche.

Tell me what art you make.

I'll tell you why I know you: anyone who's actually made anything worth paying for doesn't advocate taking things people ask money for.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by dzagama

I still don't get how that sanctions stealing RIAA-backed music.

Why steal music from irresponsible, short-sighted artists? The RIAA-signed artist is your enemy, they are the food on which the RIAA feeds.

I'm sorry I've been portrayed as a rebellious thief. I do not advocate theft. I do encourage progressive change. I don't steal music, but I don't pay for it, either. I stream it or I get a copy from a friend (remember old bootleg tapes?).

i agree that it is very black and white as the law is currently written: if you steal it you can be charged with theft. I am advocating changing the law.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Was Ghandi a thief for "stealing" salt?

A few parallels as there is zero unit cost for both and the only value each has is what's afforded by laws the majority of people find unfair.

Unfortunately, I don't see your point. The British had a monopoly on salt. The RIAA is not suing artists who self-publish, or people who steal from non-RIAA-backed artists.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

i agree that it is very black and white as the law is currently written: if you steal it you can be charged with theft. I am advocating changing the law.

If you think the law should make what the woman in the original post did legal, you are advocating theft.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Again: if record labels are out of date, so be it. But if they have to be forced out of business by thieves, they are not out of date.

I don't believe this is a proper argument. Businesses and governments have been made obsolete or "bankrupt" throughout history because of all sorts of negative reasons. War, death, theft, embezzlement, etc. These are all forces of human nature that have forever been and will forever be. To succeed is to adapt.

you may not WANT a business to close due to theft, but that's an idealistic opinion that's not going to stand in the way of it happening.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Nebraskacountrygirl

I get books on CD from the liabrary, I put them on my ipod so I can' listen to them anywhere, then delete them when I'm done with them. Does this constitude stealing? I hope not. (I'm on the side of no stealing)

if you buy a dress, wear it at a party, and return it in perfect condition is it theft?

Morally, no, because no goods or services are retained for your dollar paid because in both cases the goods were returned. However, according to the letter of the law, they are both theft because the intent was to defraud the market (or library).

Even though you did not "pay" for the book on tape, you went against the written law by digitally copying the material.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

I'm sorry I've been portrayed as a rebellious thief. I do not advocate theft. I do encourage progressive change. I don't steal music, but I don't pay for it, either. I stream it or I get a copy from a friend (remember old bootleg tapes?).

No worries, however I think the bootleg tape concept has been discussed before. The problem with digital bootlegging is the scale at which it occurs. Physical bootlegging is naturally self-limiting.

Originally Posted by j2x

i agree that it is very black and white as the law is currently written: if you steal it you can be charged with theft. I am advocating changing the law.

I agree that society and law should be dynamic, but from the statements in this thread, I'm not sure what you and yoav are arguing the laws should be changed to. How can a market for digital content exist, under the premise that the digital content is the marketing, and the t-shirt or concert ticket is the actual product?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

I don't believe this is a proper argument. Businesses and governments have been made obsolete or "bankrupt" throughout history because of all sorts of negative reasons. War, death, theft, embezzlement, etc. These are all forces of human nature that have forever been and will forever be. To succeed is to adapt.

you may not WANT a business to close due to theft, but that's an idealistic opinion that's not going to stand in the way of it happening.

Now you are saying thievery is inevitable.

1) That's not my point; my point is only that it is wrong. Which it is. You can't possibly say otherwise, unless you professionally eat cock and your keyboard regularly malfunctions because of vomited jizz after a hard day's work.

2) I say theft can be stopped. Anti-theft bitching from major players has gotten Comcast to cap uploads for P2P programs. What happens if there's more of that? And more of these ridiculous lawsuits? Torrent sites have been running from the law, and the law is catching up with them. The war's not over, thieves.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

you may not WANT a business to close due to theft, but that's an idealistic opinion that's not going to stand in the way of it happening.

Why should the law change to support the thief?

Business is what economies run on.

EDIT: okies, ill shut up. robert is much better at this den i am.

[j2x]

wow, I don't have nearly enough time to waste on this very important topic. Seriously, I would love to really get into this but I have actual money to make at my job.

In conclusion, theft is inevitable but people will continue to buy things that are worthwhile to them. Please point to an article that spells out conclusively that music sales are down due to illegal digital distribution. I don't believe such a study has been made- but I would be very curious to read it if it has.

Markets change quickly and if you're in the business of selling goods or services then I'm sure you know you need to adapt to the current trends- or you'll suffer. I'm talking pure capitalism here, taking all the legal shit out of the equation, just from a purely supply & demand perspective.

Whether it is legal or not to download will not stop people from downloading. Comcast will throttle and someone else will figure a way around it- or people will just leave Comcast for another more liberal provider. Hackers have been circumventing copyprotection for as long as digital media has existed.

I am simply saying that the traditional monetizing method we're all used to is evolving as alternative revenue sources are developed. Remember hearing Chemda talk about how hard it was to get advertisers to recognize KATG's audience numbers? All these things are very new and are sure to change dramatically- but it is ignorant, I think, to believe that it would be better for the artist (more profit) and the consumer (cheaper) if we relied on bureaucracy and litigation to solve the problem.