how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[cbooty]

Originally Posted by dzagama

Who's defending copyright law? The issue that I'm arguing for is very simple: Artists should be compensated for digital content.

Every example of copyright law I gave is an instance where someone thinks they should be compensated but generally aren't. Isn't singing happy birthday stealing performance rights the same way downloading a mp3 is stealing revenue? If not, what's the difference? Some artist wrote happy birthday and someone (AOL) owns the right to it. Why shouldn't they be compensated the same way?

What drives me nuts about this is people want to oversimplify a complicated issue.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by dzagama

Why is it not possible to extend your Sony/Apple logic to RIAA-backed music?

You don't steal Apple's IP, do you? You avoid it completely.

The same logic can't apply to every situation. I don't even know what that Gandhi thing was about.
I will not buy an iPhone/iPod anything, because Apple's model is locking down everything you do with their devices, overcharging and under delivering, much like Sony. There are phones and mp3 players that have had all these features for years, only without the marketing and pretty box. And while I realize that many components of an iPod were maybe bought from other companies and slapped together into an "Apple" product, that isn't the same... if that was even your argument.
It's a lot easier to see the giant Sony or Apple logo on something and keep walking, than see "Greedy bitches" listed on every single CD. I'm not doing homework to listen to a few songs. I know I've bought from services that were exclusively indie, and direct from band's sites. I can only hope that somehow that money didn't get to the RIAA.
For an example of my insane logic and morality, I love AC/DC. When their new album came out, I was thrilled and when I got home, expected to jump on Amazon and buy it... but I couldn't find it. I did some more searching on their site and others, and found they didn't want to put it up digitally because I guess they don't like 1's and 0's. They're old and don't understand the internet. I will not buy a CD (besides the 3$ promo CD's I've snagged off Amazon). If I couldn't get the music ANY other way, I wouldn't listen to that CD ever in my life. Unfortunately for them, there are easier ways to get it without making my life more difficult. They lose 15-20-25$ (I have no idea how much a full price CD is anymore) because they wouldn't do things my (the customer's) way. I'm fully aware this makes me a baby and horrible person. Possibly worse than Hitler. But it's my money and if I'm willing to shell it out for something I like, a company can be reasonable and meet me halfway. I'm not preventing anyone else from getting their songs, and I'm not sending them to other people. Stealing a physical product like an iPod also doesn't fall under the same category of downloading a song/movie/game that you would have otherwise not bought.

This is the longest thing I've written since 12th grade. I'm in a really bad mood tonight.

Incidentally, has the porn industry ever complained about this? They pull in billions and a lot of stuff posted for download on free sites is definitely from DVD's. Is everyone a criminal for jerking off now?
The jerk bank on these very forums have pictures that somewhere down the line, the idea was to pay for them. And getting back to music, Keith plays a lot of songs on the feed that I'm almost 100% sure he could get busted for. It's low quality and absurd to police that anyway, but other podcasts have gotten heat for it. To the RIAA, it's still stealing their hard earned billions.

[cbooty]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

I don't even know what that Gandhi thing was about.

Basically in India the British government tried to impose a salt tax and made it illegal to pick up naturally occurring salt. This gave a very abundant commodity (salt) a value that it would not normally have had and which could only be maintained with strongarm legal tactics.

My point is there's a parallel with digital distribution because there's $0 cost to produce additional units, just like there was no cost to produce salt. Ghandi simply picked up salt in an act of defiance and I think a lot of file sharers think they are doing the same thing.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Basically in India the British government tried to impose a salt tax and made it illegal to pick up naturally occurring salt. This gave a very abundant commodity (salt) a value that it would not normally have had and which could only be maintained with strongarm legal tactics.

My point is there's a parallel with digital distribution because there's $0 cost to produce additional units, just like there was no cost to produce salt. Ghandi simply picked up salt in an act of defiance and I think a lot of file sharers think they are doing the same thing.

Ahhhhh I see. I didn't read through it enough. Yea that makes sense. I was certainly pissed that if I want to listen to this band in 2009, I have to put pants on and go outside. I just hope soon all these artists will represent themselves and charge a fair price. Cutting out the middle man always saves money.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Cutting out the middle man always saves money.

and earns the artist/manufacturer/service provider greater profit, too.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Every example of copyright law I gave is an instance where someone thinks they should be compensated but generally aren't. Isn't singing happy birthday stealing performance rights the same way downloading a mp3 is stealing revenue? If not, what's the difference? Some artist wrote happy birthday and someone (AOL) owns the right to it. Why shouldn't they be compensated the same way?

What drives me nuts about this is people want to oversimplify a complicated issue.

Every issue worth considering is infinitely nuanced and complex.

I stand by my point that we aren't arguing whether artists should be paid or not, but rather HOW MUCH they should be paid at a single instance, or over time.

I think you're mistaking me with someone who thinks the status quo is acceptable. I'm merely saying that, if you truly want to change the system, STOP CONSUMING CONTENT WHICH IS LICENSED UNDER TERMS WHICH YOU REJECT. The content producers will change, trust me.

By stealing content, you feed the enemy. You help create draconian laws and things like DRM.

You waste all of humanity's time playing cat-and-mouse games.

If you don't like the terms under which "Happy Birthday" is licensed, come up with an alternative and license it freely for all of mankind.

The current law isn't as draconian as you make it out to be.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

The same logic can't apply to every situation. I don't even know what that Gandhi thing was about.
I will not buy an iPhone/iPod anything, because Apple's model is locking down everything you do with their devices, overcharging and under delivering, much like Sony. There are phones and mp3 players that have had all these features for years, only without the marketing and pretty box. And while I realize that many components of an iPod were maybe bought from other companies and slapped together into an "Apple" product, that isn't the same... if that was even your argument.
It's a lot easier to see the giant Sony or Apple logo on something and keep walking, than see "Greedy bitches" listed on every single CD. I'm not doing homework to listen to a few songs. I know I've bought from services that were exclusively indie, and direct from band's sites. I can only hope that somehow that money didn't get to the RIAA.
For an example of my insane logic and morality, I love AC/DC. When their new album came out, I was thrilled and when I got home, expected to jump on Amazon and buy it... but I couldn't find it. I did some more searching on their site and others, and found they didn't want to put it up digitally because I guess they don't like 1's and 0's. They're old and don't understand the internet. I will not buy a CD (besides the 3$ promo CD's I've snagged off Amazon). If I couldn't get the music ANY other way, I wouldn't listen to that CD ever in my life. Unfortunately for them, there are easier ways to get it without making my life more difficult. They lose 15-20-25$ (I have no idea how much a full price CD is anymore) because they wouldn't do things my (the customer's) way. I'm fully aware this makes me a baby and horrible person. Possibly worse than Hitler. But it's my money and if I'm willing to shell it out for something I like, a company can be reasonable and meet me halfway. I'm not preventing anyone else from getting their songs, and I'm not sending them to other people. Stealing a physical product like an iPod also doesn't fall under the same category of downloading a song/movie/game that you would have otherwise not bought.

This is the longest thing I've written since 12th grade. I'm in a really bad mood tonight.

Incidentally, has the porn industry ever complained about this? They pull in billions and a lot of stuff posted for download on free sites is definitely from DVD's. Is everyone a criminal for jerking off now?
The jerk bank on these very forums have pictures that somewhere down the line, the idea was to pay for them. And getting back to music, Keith plays a lot of songs on the feed that I'm almost 100% sure he could get busted for. It's low quality and absurd to police that anyway, but other podcasts have gotten heat for it. To the RIAA, it's still stealing their hard earned billions.

It's really hard to read long posts without line breaks. So I skimmed.

I didn't bring up the Gandhi thing.

I wasn't trying to make a clever point. It seemed from your statement that you avoided Apple hardware because you disagreed with their modus operandi.

I was merely telling you to avoid RIAA-backed music under the same principle.

You do have a great point with the porn thing. I was going to bring it up, myself.

How many of us pay for digital porn?

[BrownEyedBtch]

Sheesh, I step away for a little while and have 7 pages of shit to waddle through.

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.

unfair or inconvenient? I say the latter.

Originally Posted by dzagama

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?

It's people who do not want to acknowledge the truth of their actions who claim the digital content is not the product. We don't buy albums for album covers, we buy them for the music on the disc. People know full-well that they are stealing the material, but don't want to call a spade a spade.

Originally Posted by j2x

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.

I have found articles that say digital download sales are better than physical album sales. I have also found articles that question whether or not illegal downloads truly impact album sales. Personally, those seeds of doubt were not planted on me. I absolutely do believe they do. I buy a song or two at a time from itunes without ever buying a full album. I imagine there are millions of people out there doing the same thing, but from free sites, not itunes.

Originally Posted by cbooty

So, what I'm curious about is all the people vigorously defending copyright law, do you:

-Not have *any* shared, backedup music or mix cd/tapes (is so, really??)
-Not watch any copyrighted material on Youtube (that's stealing ad revenue from original creator)?
-Ever sing happy birthday? (you're supposed to pay performance rights for it - that's why no restaurants sing it)
-Use a TIVO or Slingbox?
-Watch a sporting event with a dozen friends (again public performance)?

The concept of stealing gets muddy pretty fast with intellectual property.

My point is this is not a black/white issue.

1. Happy Birthday to you - wikipedia. This case went to the Supreme Court. Then again, in 20 years, this song becomes public domain.

2. Do people who think crime is wrong still jaywalk occasionally? Or roll through stop signs? Or change lanes without signalling? All of these things are offenses and are punishable by fines. No one is perfect, dude.

3. What does having a TIVO have to do with being a perfect individual who never strays?

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Basically in India the British government tried to impose a salt tax and made it illegal to pick up naturally occurring salt. This gave a very abundant commodity (salt) a value that it would not normally have had and which could only be maintained with strongarm legal tactics.

My point is there's a parallel with digital distribution because there's $0 cost to produce additional units, just like there was no cost to produce salt. Ghandi simply picked up salt in an act of defiance and I think a lot of file sharers think they are doing the same thing.

It's like we're talking past each other.

Fuck the RIAA, yes. But if they provide a service that artists want, let them exist. It's artists who are dumbfucks for whoring themselves.

Regarding the salt, I pointed out how you were simplifying a complex issue. The British had a monopoly on all the salt production in India.

The RIAA has no such monopoly on production or distribution. They are not preventing anyone from producing and distributing music independently.

If you want to kill them, completely avoid RIAA-backed music.

I'll say this over, and over, ad infinitum.

If you want to legitimize stealing digital content in some misguided attempt to "bring down" the RIAA, you're helping destroy a potentially massive market, even after their demise.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by dzagama

How many of us pay for digital porn?

Probably why the porntube sites have the clips of the scenes, with their site's logos all around them. They are just using those sites to advertise their own, where you can download the rest of the scenes. If music that was free to download only offered the middle 2 minutes of all songs, then this would be a different issue.