how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by MaxxedMan

How many people have strong feelings about this topic, and how many people are just fucking with Bob seeing if his head will explode?

He Bob, steeling from musicians is a right and not a privileged.

(Everyone stand back, here's a garbage bag)

I guarantee yoav is more pissed about this thread than I am.

I know I'm right, so it doesn't make me angry, but yoav is mad I crashed his anti-RIAA party by pointing out he's a thief.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by MaxxedMan

How many people have strong feelings about this topic, and how many people are just fucking with Bob seeing if his head will explode?

He Bob, steeling from musicians is a right and not a privileged.

(Everyone stand back, here's a garbage bag)

Bob's not fucking with folks, he's arguing very aggressively. Not my style at all, and one that I find quite distasteful, but he is sticking to the point and not just slinging shit.

Yoav isn't fucking with shit, either, nor was Nebraska girl or anyone else. You seem to be the only one fucking with shit, so what's your point?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

I would bet that if the business end (supply) changed to reflect the consumer's desires (demand) a much more equitable system would arise. I believe, as yoav tried to say, those who steal do so because it's more convenient. I think few people set out to be thieves, it's just something that they do because they have been disenfranchised from the system. I can imagine a system where an artist would be paid fairly for their work and where the consumer wouldn't feel like they had to steal.

That may be the case, and thieving definitely is perpetrated because of how easy it is, but you can't deny that it's also because of zero cost to the consumer that it's so popular.

The system definitely could be more adaptive to the consumer need in order to recoup lost profit, but there will always be losses due to the ability to steal and people's selfishness.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

there will always be losses due to the ability to steal and people's selfishness.

yes, there will always be theft and graft, so we agree that trying to stop it is moot. Instead, as I said, a system should be adopted that is more inclusive and less litigious. Americans, and as a growing international Western Society trend, are very independent folks who don't respond well to fear and propaganda.

[BrownEyedBtch]

So again, if digital copies have no value, and it isn't theft, then what was the woman in the article convicted of?

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

So again, if digital copies have no value, and it isn't theft, then what was the woman in the article convicted of?

The point that they're making is that the law is not in line with the current, accepted morality.

Regardless of what the "system" accused her of, it's not theft.

That's fine, we can redefine theft. What the opposition is trying to point out is the consequences of redefining theft.

They extend far beyond "bringing down the man".

The software companies mentioned, did not switch to a service-based model because of piracy. Piracy has gone on for decades.

The software companies switched models because of open-source competition.

In this case, the digital content thieves are the pirates. The independent labels are the open-source competition.

Piracy created shitty DRM. Open source caused the industry to shift models.

[DJ Trashy]

There are two reasons for giving a copy of art to another person. One is to share or trade. That has been going on since the first recordings were made, and isn't likely to stop. The other is to make money off of the work of the original artist. Publishers and royalty owners have always gone after this second group, the group *selling* art. There are two reasons for this. One, money is changing hands and not going to the copyright owner. Two, the selling and copying is being done in bulk. The numbers are high enough that it hurts profits.

Until the internet came along no one gave a shit about exchanging art. But as soon as it became technologically feasible for one person to share his copy of a piece of art with *all* his friends, and even thousands of people he does not know, the numbers added up and caused concern. But the legal issues get a bit murky here. It is easy to prove that a bootlegger is taking in money that should rightfully go to the copyright holder. But how do you prove that regarding file-sharing? No money is being exchanged! How can you prove that those receiving art *would* have purchased it had the free copy not been available? Well you can't prove it. I'm sure a percentage would, but what percent?

For example, I was given 15GB of music at a party one time. I've probably listened to less than 5% of it, and I've deleted 10-15% because it was stuff I'll never listen to. I could probably delete another 40% for the same reason, I just haven't taken the time.

Should I be forced to pay for all that music I had possession of for awhile? What if I had Kazaa or Limewire running for a few days here and there, and what if someone snagged some of it? Did my taking of this music steal any money that I would normally have spent? Did my sharing of it do the same?

Fact is, for me the answer is no. For others it might be yes. But there are a lot of legal and financial issues to be worked out here. Publishers of print, music and video had better get their shit together and figure out how to stay relevant or the masses will just bypass them. It has already started with music and independent film, and newspapers are on death watch. You can adapt or you can try to force the entire world to stop changing and progressing. Guess which one won't work?

[dzagama]

DJ Trashy, you're right, but you provide no justification for denying content creators the option for legal recourse.

Yes, old media is dying, but I'm not arguing against reading freely available old media content on the Internets.

I'm just saying that, if, old media wants to try to sell their content on the Internets, they should have that option.

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by dzagama

DJ Trashy, you're right, but you provide no justification for denying content creators the option for legal recourse.

I did not say that they should be denied that option. I simply believe they are on shaky legal ground. The Jammie Thomas case will most likely be appealed. The judge is already on record that the original $220,000 award was oppressive, it's doubtful he likes the $1.9 Million award any better.

From what I gather part of the accusation from Capitol was that the songs were merely made available. There was no charge as to actual distribution. Again, murky waters here. I won't be surprised to see this overturned on appeal.

[BrownEyedBtch]

So again, if digital copies have no value, and it isn't theft, then what was the woman in the article convicted of?