how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

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.

tsk, tsk.

I have detected your clever ruse. I shall not implicate myself!

[Nebraskacountrygirl]

Originally Posted by j2x

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). [/QUOTE]

Forgot to tell you, the library manager told me it was okay to put it on my ipod. iPod and the libraries are working right now on getting the information able to download right from the site anyway. No I don't believe in wearing a dress that I pay for then returning it. However I paid for the services of the library. So that makes it okay.

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

I see this point, but in my head, my morals, I delete the content after I'm done with it. Not to get away from the law, but because it served it's purpose and now I'm back to them for more.

I think this whole conversation is kind of echoing. Yoav and j2x are never going to agree with ya'll. They like to "Converse" I think is how it all started with "conversations" with Yoav in the past. Hard headed and NOT objective at all. Whateves. Good luck bob!

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Nebraskacountrygirl

Good luck bob!

I think I've made my point.

j2x has avoided talking ethics at all, cbooty is putting up a paper-thin defense based on flawed copyright law, and yaov has (thankfully) shut up, but not before trying to act offended at my vitriol. It's kind of remarkable that how much people care about strong language and personal attacks is directly proportional to how much of a hole I've punched through their case.

Anyway, I'll leave an argument about whether or not the effects of theft are part of capitalism to others, so long as there isn't some deluded and malicious moron proclaiming that he is a harbinger of a glorious renaissance of art because he steal from artists.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by yoav

it's an arbitrarily large amount

goodness, you had much more time to dedicate to addressing many points than I do. Thank you for being a reasonable voice in this polarizing debate.

i especially liked the cartoon at the end.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

i'm a thief but defined by who? my country, legal system, etc. do not consider me a thief and because i'm within it's jurisdiction i am not a thief.

thievery is itself a concept, one of ownership, if tomorrow the government decided air had value, then me breathing the air in your house without your explicit permission would be considered theft.

Theft is taking something that you do not own.

You do not own the music you are taking.

You are a thief.

If you don't think music has ownership, you hate art.

Originally Posted by yoav

why can't you make your point without directing personal insults, it's very juvenile. this thread is not about thievery.

And yet the news article is about a thief.

Originally Posted by yoav

the vast majority of music pirates(studies have been done) still pay for the same amount of music they did previously. they still pay for music, they still go to shows, they still buy merchandise, they still support artists and they do it because they like music. they actually do it more now because due to piracy they are exposed to more music at a faster rate than listening to the radio and a wider span than watching the same 5 videos on mtv cycle redundantly because they too get a cut from the product placement.

1) That exposure rate is NOT AT ALL tied to illegal downloads; it is increased exposure that is the result of new media. If illegal downloading was eliminated, that exposure would not go away.

2) Since the only positive quality to theft you could offer is not specific to illegal downloading, and is endemic to the internet as a whole, there need only be but one person who did not buy something they would have otherwise bought. We all know this has happened. Thus, illegal downloading has a negative effect.

Originally Posted by yoav

i started this thread to show the riaa(whether or not they read this) that their scare tactics and manipulation of the legal system is not effective.

You sure do claim to have a lot of balls for someone who cannot be affected by their bravado.

Originally Posted by yoav

if you make a digital copy, you are a criminal under US law, it doesn't matter what the library says, what your morals are or that you didn't know, if the riaa finds out and the library is issued a subpoena for you information and what content you made digital copies of they can and will sue you for up to $150,000 per item. when bob shouts, he's shouting at you as much as me. the library is not allowed to make copies either, your library is promoting thievery and bob will go swear at them now.

Even though I've already made it clear that I'm defending the spirit of the law and not the letter of it, you choose to try to insist that I think otherwise. You cannot build a sturdy house with lies.

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as us disagreeing, i don't think it's true, we both think it should be legal to copy a song you purchase onto your ipod for convenience. i don't think either of us likes being called a criminal or the idea of being sued obscene amounts of money for doing nothing wrong.

Yes, copying a purchased song onto an iPod should be legal.

But that's not what this woman from the article did, is it? And it's not what you do, is it?

In the library thing she shouldn't be considered a criminal, whereas you still should be. Don't try to foster solidarity with people who understand that you aren't entitled to everything.

Originally Posted by yoav

the porn thread is very illegal, katg are not responsible as everyone who joins the forums agrees to a contract that they are not liable for what's posted here. the uploaders are all criminals, and anyone who's been there is supporting crime. sexy sexy crime. funny that bob doesn't yell in the porn thread more. i guess he's just a loud obnoxious hypocrite.

Porn thieves haven't adopted this ridiculous notion of fighting The Man. If they did, I'd be yelling at them.

Uploaders are all criminals, and anyone who's been in there is supporting crime.

I don't yell in the porn thread simply because I don't go into the porn thread.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

also bob keeps saying no thieves produce any content. that's not true and proof if anyone was unclear of the kind of hollow statements he's been making throughout.

What do you produce, yoav?

If you made shit, I think you'd've said by now.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

Thank you for being a reasonable voice in this polarizing debate.

A reasonable voice is someone who steals something someone put effort and time and money into making?

Fuck reasonable voices, then.

I hate me a thief. If that makes me a fucking radical, so be it.

[j2x]

isn't there a way to ignore certain user's forum posts? I went into the User CP but didn't see anything there...

[Cretaceous Bob]

Aren't you a pussy.

Bob's such an asshole for saying people should pay for things if things have a price tag on them.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Aren't you a pussy.

Bob's such an asshole for saying people should pay for things if things have a price tag on them.

Just because it has a price tag? You must have had some kind of personal trauma where someone took something you "put a price tag on".
What if someone steals something and then puts a price tag on it and resells it to you? Companies you support have done this.
What if the original creator of something says "I want to give this away for free", but a 3rd party won't let them? Or copies their idea and sells it anyway? I feel I now have the right to have that for free, as an extra "fuck you" to the people who shouldn't have a say in the matter.

Apple doesn't want DRM, the record companies do, the companies that sell MP3 players don't, the artists don't. Even though they didn't create anything, and in my mind, despite what a contract says, have no right to dictate any terms of price or use, the RIAA has final say about who should pay for what, and what you should do with it if you did pay.

Do you agree with having music that is so locked down it's a hassle to transfer to another computer? Do you think it's ok to pay for that? Now that iTunes finally has DRM free music, they decided it would be a good idea to charge you another 30 cents per song that you already bought, to be able to use it the way "thieves" have been able to use their music all along. Sorry, but if you cause me 1 minute of aggravation, I'm going elsewhere. I don't have time for stress for a damn song.

Yes, the RIAA should be brought down by anyone that can do it. Thieves will do it because they happen to be smarter than the people who buy an mp3 player, and then call all kinds of tech support to figure out why they can't play their legally purchased music collection. I used to hear these calls non stop and it drove me crazy.

What if the RIAA eventually vanishes, and the people that have been making the music all along say they don't really care how it's distributed or what it costs? (some say this openly now) Will you retroactively agree that it's now ok to download music?