how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[dzagama]

Well, then, this has been 9 pages of nothing.

No one's disagreeing about the fundamental issue of artists having the right to create the market in any way they see fit.

If an artist wants to sell an MP3 with a license that forbids copying, then they have that right.

One has the right to accept those terms, or boycott the artist.

One has the right to break the terms of the license, and be rightfully called a thief.

If an artist wants to distribute an MP3 in the public domain, they have that right.

All this talk about inevitability is silly. All crime is inevitable.

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by dzagama

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

The only inevitability is the eventual transformation or elimination of the middleman. Bands and film producers can now handle production and distribution either by themselves or through third-party companies. Authors are producing free audio versions of books, and then still hitting the NY Times Bestseller list when it comes out in print, all without major publishing house backing. This does not require the giving up of copyright. Neither does it require teams of lawyers hounding citizens.

The creators, all of them and not just a select few chosen by existing power-brokers, can make more money per creation than ever before. They don't get the up-front money loan, but they make a lot more in the long run. It's a win-win.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy

The only inevitability is the eventual transformation or elimination of the middleman. Bands and film producers can now handle production and distribution either by themselves or through third-party companies. Authors are producing free audio versions of books, and then still hitting the NY Times Bestseller list when it comes out in print, all without major publishing house backing. This does not require the giving up of copyright. Neither does it require teams of lawyers hounding citizens.

The creators, all of them and not just a select few chosen by existing power-brokers, can make more money per creation than ever before. They don't get the up-front money loan, but they make a lot more in the long run. It's a win-win.

I wish we'd just gotten to this point much sooner in this thread.

I (and I'm pretty sure, Bob) have never argued "for" the RIAA. Fuck 'em. But, the artists that were stupid enough to sign contracts with RIAA-backed labels, knowingly, signed contracts with companies that licensed their music under licenses which were not public-domain.

Unfortunately, that means that we can't consider RIAA-backed music public-domain, no matter how much we, or the artists, wish it were.

I'm happy to support independent artists, but if an artist wants to solely create digital content, and not support their act with touring or merchandise, they have the right to try to make a living in that fashion.

If KATG decides that they want to sell their shows for $0.10 a piece, under a restrictive license, they have that right.

I don't have some inherent right to circumvent their desire. I can opt-in, or say fuck'em.

No one is against file sharing, they are against piracy.

There's a difference.

[dzagama]

So, to try to bring down the RIAA by saying, "information should be free, maaaan", is counter-productive.

Stop listening to RIAA-backed music, listen to artists on emusic, archive.org, etc, and the RIAA will adapt, or die.

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

Her mistake.

[dzagama]

Fuck.

Actually reedin' Bob's new posts in this thread makes me feel a bit silly.

The point of contention appears to be: should artists be able to charge money for something that can be reproduced infinitely at zero-cost.

Bob and I seem to think so.

j2x, and possibly yoav, appear to think not.

Lots of things in the real-world have prices that don't reflect the actual cost of manufacture.

CDs, DVDs, printed artwork, architectural blueprints (maybe?), etc.

Things are priced above the cost of manufacture because of some innate value we give art and innovation, which extends beyond the media.

Why is any duplicated idea, realized in a physical form, priced above the cost of manufacture?

Why should things be different in the digital world?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

have i stated my love for you recently?

it's amazing how quick that bob guy forgets how i unequivocally proved i was not a thief in multiple contexts, and how he continues to accuse me of being one and not any of the other people who've posted here about the same things i have, nor admitted his own thief morals were in fact thief morals, bob is pious and his god serves him and him only.

Your very first response to me was in defense of pirating.

My problem with you is that you 1) pirate music without owning a legal copy of the same music, and 2) that you defend doing so.

Even if the first isn't true (which I very highly doubt), the second definitely is.

Originally Posted by yoav

almost like he's got something against me specifically, he never lashed out at browneyedbitch or nebraska for being thieves.. i think no matter what the topic of this thread was he would have lashed out at me for 15 pages without making a valid point once or staying on topic. at least he's passionate about his hate towards me, gotta respect passion.

I never lashed out at browneyedbitch or nebraska for being thieves either.

I have stayed on topic for this entire thread, so accusations that I'm hating on you without basis are unfounded. I have given my reason, and that reason has been clear in every single one of my posts.

Originally Posted by dzagama

Well, then, this has been 9 pages of nothing.

No one's disagreeing about the fundamental issue of artists having the right to create the market in any way they see fit.

If an artist wants to sell an MP3 with a license that forbids copying, then they have that right.

One has the right to accept those terms, or boycott the artist.

One has the right to break the terms of the license, and be rightfully called a thief.

If an artist wants to distribute an MP3 in the public domain, they have that right.

All this talk about inevitability is silly. All crime is inevitable.

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

Originally Posted by dzagama

The point of contention appears to be: should artists be able to charge money for something that can be reproduced infinitely at zero-cost.

Bob and I seem to think so.

j2x, and possibly yoav, appear to think not.

Lots of things in the real-world have prices that don't reflect the actual cost of manufacture.

CDs, DVDs, printed artwork, architectural blueprints (maybe?), etc.

Things are priced above the cost of manufacture because of some innate value we give art and innovation, which extends beyond the media.

Why is any duplicated idea, realized in a physical form, priced above the cost of manufacture?

Why should this be different in the digital world?

As you realized, you do not actually agree with yoav.

Your summary has been my entire and only subject throughout this entire thread.

If yoav had his way and digital copying had existed 20 years ago, Bill Watterson would be a poor man, or he would have been forced to compromise his artistic integrity.

Yoav is advocating destroying the ability for an artist to solely produce art, and it is despicable to do such a thing and claim to support art.

Contending that art has neither value nor ownership is nothing but damaging to artists, but not to merchandisers.

Essentially, yoav thinks there would be nothing wrong with me stealing a digital copy of all of the KATG DVDs and CDs, and then selling KATG merchandise I produced myself.

If he has a problem with the stealing part, he is a hypocrite. If he has a problem with me profiting off of art, that means art has ownership, which is something he deprives from artists when he steals it in the first place. If he is depriving artists of ownership, artists do lose something from people stealing digital copies of his work. Since he has stated that artists lose nothing, he contends that art has no ownership.

I find it nothing short of disgusting and vile to make such claims.

I think KATG is owned by Keith and Chemda, even though it is distributed for free. Yoav thinks otherwise. If anyone has a problem with me profiting off of their work, that person disagrees with yoav.

[dzagama]

Yeap, Cret. I'm pussyfooting cuz I like yoav.

You've been consistently correct about the issue. The naysayers seem to be extrapolating incorrectly from your initial stance that content creators should be able to assign value (a price) to digital content.

Arstechnica has a nice bit on the trial:

Richard Marx (!) attacks RIAA after $1.92M Thomas verdict - Ars Technica

FTA, Richard Marx says:


As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels. These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.

So now we have a "judgment" in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive. Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I'm ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.


Richard Marx appears to be on our side.

So, unless yoav's definition of "pirated" means, he ripped 14,200 tracks from CDs he purchased, or acquired through some monetary transaction, then he stole them; which you've said (over and over).

I'm only chiming in so that you're not the sole opposition.

Yeah, punitive settlements suck, but that's another discussion.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by dzagama

So, unless yoav's definition of "pirated" means, he ripped 14,200 tracks from CDs he purchased, or acquired through some monetary transaction, then he stole them; which you've said (over and over).

Given what he has argued, and given the nature of the original article, I am positive he is in support of acquiring art without owning paid copies of that art.

For example:

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.

The above post is clearly anti-stealing.

He disagrees with me, though he tries to make record labels the main issue:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But then he slips this bit in:

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

Essentially, he is saying that ownership of art is an invention of The Man.

He is trying to hide behind the wrongs of the RIAA so that no one notices that he is forcefully ripping the rights of artists out of their hands. We see that is the case through him trying desperately to associate me with the RIAA, despite my very clear disagreements and dissatisfaction with the RIAA.

Yoav is trying to convince us to throw away something that is not wrong because someone used it wrongly. Ownership of art should not be thrown away because of the actions of the RIAA, just like we shouldn't tear up the Constitution of the United States of America because George Bush was a dickface.

[dzagama]

The SXSW torrent is fucking awesome.

Don't these kinds of torrents put a ding in the "it costs $43,234 to fill up a 130GB iPod" arguments?

ps. Google is the fucking shit!

Torrent Info ‎(Home of the (UNOFFICIAL) SXSW 2009 Torrent)‎

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

there is some confusion in your interpretation of how i believe today's world should handle copyrights and what i foresee and hope to see in the future. i won't discuss my vision of the future in this post, although would be happy to later on. you've also grossly exaggerated and incorrectly extrapolated my views. furthermore i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, i'm simply voicing my opinion. stop demonizing me for having differing views than you.

it's one thing to question what my beliefs may imply, but for you to say that i believe your incorrect analysis of the implications without giving me a chance to better explain myself isn't right.

i believe that a digital copy of a work, produced by someone other than the artist for personal use, or to introduce someone to said work does not have monetary value(a fact of capitalism). i believe sharing a digital music file over a p2p network is the same as:

• recording something off the radio onto cassette tape
  [Music cannot be played on the radio without an artist's consent, or the copyright holder's consent, therefore this example is void. In one instance, art can exist beyond the realm of that method of theft (radio) if the artist wishes it to do so. In the other, art cannot exist beyond the realm of that particular method of theft (digital copies).]
• buying a movie/album/painting and showing it to your friends in your house, or displaying it in your driveway, etc.
  [Except without the buying part. Fail. Also, that example is not analogous until you include the "...and give them all exact copies of that movie/album/painting. And then that would be wrong.]
• purchasing a piece of designer furniture, and crafting your own duplicate for your own personal use and not restricting a friend of yours from seeing the piece of furniture and crafting their own duplicate.
  [First of all, notice the same discrepancy? It's not the same, because there is no money changing hands. Secondly, if you want me to say that exactly replicating designer furniture is theft as well, you've got it.]
• learning to play a song on guitar that someone else wrote and playing it for your friends' or own personal pleasure
  [If you can't see the difference between that and digital copies of art, you are a fucking idiot.]

i believe the above statements do not describe theft, i believe it's possible to take the above statements to be theft if you were to profit off said duplication, or if you intend to thwart the intent of the artist. where you and i seem to differ on this is i believe that it's not the digital copy that has value, it is the artist's intent that holds value. (i think unless i've misunderstood your stance, that you believe both have value to the artist regardless of whether or not the 'pirate' intends or succeeds to profit or limit profit of the artist by their actions)

i agree with you that the artist's intent is key and should be respected, and believe the artist has the right to safeguard their intent. however i believe that in respect of true fair use, an artist that releases an album in today's culture, behavior, and technology that they intend to have it digitally copied by the listener for their personal use and to show to their friends. for an artist to release their work and not expect anyone to share it, or copy a cd to their ipod so they can listen while they jog, and further expect the listener only to listen in complete seclusion so no one overhears a part of the tune is ridiculous. the out of touch artists who believe they should have such control can't have their cake and eat it too, just like the unfortunate podcasters who signed up for podshow can't belong to podshow and retain control of their content. responsibility cannot fall solely on the consumer.

it's because of this conflict that i believe an artist that doesn't intend for their work to be listened to without their explicit consent down to the individual listener does not release recordings to the public, but instead performs live. 'piracy' has been around for decades before the internet, and so artists releasing their work through such avenues came after piracy and those works are released into that pre-existing environment.

it's because of this, perhaps in some rare cases unintentional, intent that the term 'pirate' does not apply to me. i'm not a thief either as you cannot steal something which has no value, ie: a digital copy. if you understand capitalism, then you can only agree that a digital copy has no monetary value as i explained previously in this thread, nor should it, as it conflicts with true fair use, as clarified above.

i don't hate music, i don't hinder music, i support and participate in the arts, i don't circumvent drm(although i think it's proven to be impractical and cripple true fair use and in it's current form should be, has been, and is being boycotted).

1) No, you don't get amnesty because you're dressing up thievery as a "belief". How about you don't get pissed at me because my "belief" is that you're a thief, and I must act accordingly? And don't try to pretend that I have not read what you have said previously, or that you have not told me what you think, therefore I am prejudging you. I obviously have had a spot-on grasp of what your beliefs are before this point, and they are justifications for theft.

2) It is not possible to release content without digital copies being made of it, regardless of the medium. You have therefore set up a trap wherein artists cannot make art without losing their right of control.

3) Digital copies do have value; they have as much value as the art itself does. In the same way that many people would not pay the same amount for a blank book vs. a book written by JK Rowling, many people would not pay the same for a blank MP3 as they would a song in MP3 form. Art has value, therefore digital copies of art have value.

4) Capitalism defines value through supply and demand. There is obviously a demand for art, therefore it has value. Your whole basis around assigning zero value to digital copies is that it costs nothing to reproduce; this is an incongruous with capitalism's method of determining value. Something that is physical and has a cost of production may still have zero value. If I carve wood into the most hideous image possible and no one wants to buy it, it has no value, though it had cost of production. Cost of production is not the absolute method of determining value.

5) By saying that it would be theft to profit off of copyrighted material, you are admitting that copyrights exist.

6) Part of the right of a copyright holder is to have control over how the content is distributed, and to whom. They are not obliged to give you their content, even if it costs them nothing to do so. An example of why this is so: what if I were to host KATG shows on my own dollar, but with all references to the show name and website removed, meanwhile dropping in my own theme song, effectively renaming the show? If I have no ads on my website for the renamed show, I do not profit. Utilized by heinous enough people (perhaps a marketing whiz or two), and artists lose money through lost viewers, though the replicator does not profit.

7) Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent. It does not matter if what is taken has value. If profiting off of someone else's art is wrong, that means art has ownership. If something is owned and it is taken without the owner's consent, it has been stolen.

8) By saying artists should not be able to release art to the public without having it stolen from them, you are kicking sustainability right out from underneath artists. The modern video game market would be decimated, as video game creators would have to be limited to producing arcade games. Authors would have to have their own libraries full, wherein one would go to read their book, and one would not be able to leave without first being searched for all copies of their work. You are making art unprofitable no matter how you dress it up, and that, in a capitalist society, is intensely damaging to the creation of art.

9) You continue to try to confuse the issue by bringing up unreasonable elements of copyright law again. Stop being shady. I've stated for the last 17 pages now that that's not what I'm talking about. Shut that shit up.

10) Even if the analogies to stealing digital copies of art were accurate, the impacts of all those examples is nowhere near that of pirating. Replicating designer furniture is inherently limiting, and playing a popular song on one's own instruments is commonly limited in effect on the market. Those are permitted because of their scope. But if someone opens a factory and starts mass producing an exact replica of furniture that is copyrighted, they should (and would) be shut down. If someone records someone's else's song and starts distributing digital copies and physical copies of it and their efforts are effective, they should (and would) be shut down. Every example you mentioned is only tolerated because of the small scale, which is something digitally copying art does not share.