how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Instead of arguing about artists rights, I think we should just work on getting rid of capitalism. That's clearly the problem here.
There's no money in Star Trek and that's worked out well for like... 6 series and 11 movies.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Instead of arguing about artists rights, I think we should just work on getting rid of capitalism. That's clearly the problem here.

Artists' rights should exist outside of capitalism, but dummies seem to respond positively to asserting that what one claims is adhering to capitalism, so that's what I'll do.

If you want to promote an anti-artist communist state, then I will argue against that as well.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Artist's rights should exist outside of capitalism, but dummies seem to respond positively to asserting that what one claims is adhering to capitalism, so that's what I'll do.

If you want to promote an anti-artist communist state, then I will argue against that as well.

Not anti-artist. I am one. I just don't like money.

[golgi body]

I've only read through a few pages here and there from this thread, but wanted to share my view on a few things. First, Bob is right about pretty much everything covered on this topic. Second, I'll fully admit that I used to be a thief. I was a junior or senior in high school when Napster first came to fruition. It was pretty fucking awesome to all of a sudden be able to have just about any song you wanted at your convenience. It's almost hard to imagine the days when I had to go to my shitty record store to find out they still didn't have the new Nada Surf album (yeah that's right I liked them, "High/Low" was a great album). Shit, my brother camped out to get Pear Jam's "Vs." back in 1993. But that's besides the point.

I used to download a lot of shit, especially when I was in college. The weird thing is I'd download shit I didn't even want, just because it was there. I still to this day (9 years later) have never watched my copy of "Josie and the Pussycats" (don't know what I was thinking when I grabbed that one). Anyway, about 3 or 4 years I've stopped being a thief, partly because I didn't want to get caught, but mainly for the following reasons:

1. I got back into recording music and started frequenting sites like Gearslutz.com where a lot of members actually work in the music business as recording/mixing/mastering engineers, producers, and artists (they even have some real bigshots over there, e.g. right now there's a Q&A with Butch Vig (producer on Siamese Dream and Nevermind just to name a few)). You get a much better perspective on the topic of music piracy and the RIAA over there than you do on DIGG and Torrentfreak.
   
   
2. I got really turned off by the politics of this pirate generation. Most of them are children and the rest are people with a really warped sense of reality (similar to people who think Communism can work). When you're so disgusted by a group and their actions, it's easy to eliminate those actions from your life. And let's get something straight, pirates aren't only ripping off the RIAA and MPAA. They steal shit from small independent artists and movie houses too.
   
   
3. I work in a field that doesn't physically produce anything of value. Instead, my colleagues provide intellectual services and 'discover things'. I believe that our services have value and expect to be compensated for them. It bothers me that people out there that actually produce things may not be compensated simply because their work is easily obtained, copied, and distributed.
   
   
4. With Amazon, Itunes, Xbox Live marketplace, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, LastFM, TV channel websites (e.g. NBC, TBS, Cartoon Network), and your local library, there are plenty avenues to obtain free or discounted media. Piracy is no longer necessary to obtain music or video that you want.
   
   
5. I grew up and didn't want to be a piece of shit anymore (this is still up for debate though)

Originally Posted by yoav

i'm not a thief either as you cannot steal something which has no value, ie: a digital copy.

Why does a digital copy have no value? If there is a desire/demand for something, then that something has value. Perhaps this stupid hypothetical situation will convince you (probably not but I'm still going to type it).

First, let's assume that the age of file sharing does not exist and music can only be acquired through means of CD sales. Second, assume that company XYZ has invested a lot of money into the production, recording, mixing, mastering, and promotion of the new Black Eyed Stool album. Let's further assume the world in which this album is marketed and sold exists in such a way that sales will never decrease, but instead remain at some steady rate for all eternity (demand remains the same so that its market value never fluctuates either). So, while the first duplication run of CD's cost XYZ quite a bit (due to the initial investments), there exists a point in time in which the album will turn a profit. Since we've already stated that the rate of sales will never decrease, XYZ will continue to profit until the end of time. Therefore, the actual manufacturing costs of the CD's reduce to virtually nothing when factoring in long term revenue.

At this point there are two views:

1. Since Company XYZ has recouped its initial investment and all future CD duplication comes at no cost, all albums automatically hold NO VALUE and should be freely distributed or 'shared' for everyone. (same as your digital copies)
   
   OR
   
   
2. Since demand for this album still exists, you recognize that value can exist beyond tangible objects and allow Company XYZ and any other content owners to carry on with business as they see fit.

Now I know the above scenario is oversimplified and unrealistic, but I hope some may see my point. When I buy an album, I'm not purchasing the plastic or magnetic tape the music has been transferred to, but the actual content. Just because physical discs are no longer necessary to listen to music or watch movies doesn't mean the content no longer possesses value. To think this way is absurd. I'm not concerned with the profit margins the record company is trying to maintain either. What it comes down to is a desire on my behalf to listen to/watch something, and if I feel that desire justifies the cost, I'll purchase it.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Also, videos of people playing songs from Guitar Hero/Rock Band were being taken down because that's "performance" and naturally, I'm going to watch someone's recording of them in their living room with poor audio, over going to a concert or buying the song.

I'm sure it's a whole other RIAA like organization, but there was also the bullshit about Kindle not reading some books out loud because it lets people other than the original purchaser listen to it. Ohhhh no how horrible!

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by yoav

you're like bob in that you talk without reading the thread.

you're asking me questions i've answered thoroughly. a number of times. at bob's belligerent requests.

I haven't asked you anything. The only statement directed at you was in response to your quote that digital copies have no value. My counter argument was simply that if a desire or demand exists for an object, be it physical or not, that said thing possesses value. What did I miss?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by yoav

you missed my 10 explanations and clarifications of that quote, including the text surrounding the original quote.

First, you don't have to be such a cunt. My post was 5 minutes after the one in which you 'clarified' the statement I quoted you on. There was no way for me to see it, so relax.

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as capitalism, a digital copy, even ones you download for money on itunes do not have value, it's the network and transportation of a digital copy that has value.

Don't agree here. They're selling a file containing a song and a license to play said song. If you want to say that they're selling the access to a song, fine, but that digital copy provides you access to the song as much as network used to download it.

Originally Posted by yoav

if a digital copy had value, then buying music on amazon that's drm-free would cost MORE than music purchased with drm. because purchasing DRM free music means quite literally that you intend to make digital copies.

Says who? If Amazon wanted to charge $50 per DRM free song I'm sure they could, but that wouldn't generate many customers. Doesn't it make sense that in order to increase their share in the online music market that they would offer things like DRM free music at prices comparable or less than Itunes. I don't think it has much if anything to do with whether or not a 'digital copy' has value.

How about this though. Suppose you really wanted and were willing to spend $1 on some new song and there happens to be two different digital formats to choose from. One in mono 64bit 24kHz mp3 and the other in stereo 24bit 48kHz WAV. Which would choose? They're both digital copies of the same master recording, one just happens to be much higher quality. The reason the second option is more valuable is because it reproduces the sounds in ways that are more accurate and true to the source. It doesn't matter that it's a digital copy. The value comes from the file's ability to reproduce something that you want.

[Nebraskacountrygirl]

I know this was a while back, but I haven't had time to read everything but now.

Yoav: This is my only question to you at this point... It's not illegal in Canada to pirate music, right? But does that justify an american law being broken when you are essentially taking American artists work? I don't honestly have a problem if you are only downloading Canadian artists work. That's your country, your law, but I'm in America and it's illegal for us to do that. Shouldn't it also be illegal for you to "steal" american artists songs?


This whole thread is giving me a headache, but I can't seem to get away.

Bob: I still love you!!!

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

i'm sorry to say bob but your bolded inline comments clearly show what i wrote went over your head.

just to highlight some of what you missed. although i don't know how you did.

artists give consent to play they're music on the radio, knowing and accepting that people will record it onto cassette, and maybe even make a mix tape for their special someone without having to pay royalties. releasing a cd has the same implications.

I already stated the difference there.

Apparently you can't read.

I even state that the actions you are describing WOULD be forced to answer to the law if they become widespread enough.

Apparently you can't read.

Originally Posted by yoav

maybe you don't think live performance is an art, i happen to think it's pretty cool.

Yes, it's art. But if artists cannot profit from their work, it is hard for them to continue doing it.

I already explained that part of it, but apparently you can't read.

The fact that you leave one remaining outlet for art does not change the fact that you seek to cut off a huge outlet for it. If all one has to do to not hate art is to persecute it until it is nearly gone and effectively unsustainable, but not actually destroy all venues for art, then I reject your definition of who hates art.

Originally Posted by yoav

the riaa and copyright law don't see a difference between learning to play a song and digital copies of art. maybe you're forgetting there was a ban on online tabulator sites, even if people transposed it by ear. and it's illegal to perform someone else's copyrighted work, even if you're not charging and don't profit. it is also illegal to play a song you've purchased on cd or whatever for a group of people without explicit consent from the copyright holder. i still think you need a little background before you argue something you know little about.

You're again trying to confuse the issue by talking about things I've already stated MANY TIMES that I disagree with.

Apparently you can't read.

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as capitalism, a digital copy, even ones you download for money on itunes do not have value, it's the network and transportation of a digital copy that has value. if a digital copy had value, and i've said this before, but that must have gone over your head too, if a digital copy had value, then buying music on amazon that's drm-free would cost MORE than music purchased with drm. because purchasing DRM free music means quite literally that you intend to make digital copies. please read this paragraph and think about it before responding. it's important that you not just read, but understand the words and their relationship to each other before you respond.

That's dumb, and you're dumb.

Every copy of art inherits the value of art.

Originally Posted by yoav

you're painting things with a very broad brush and trying to oversimplify a very complex issue, you're the only one that thinks this is a black and white issue.

Now you're trying to retreat.

Originally Posted by yoav

theft is taking something that someone else owns. nobody owns a digital copy, that's silly, and you've previously agreed with that when you said that it should not be illegal to copy music from a cd you purchased to your ipod for convenience.

This point is patently stupid.

Copyright means artists own the art itself. Not the mode of delivery. Digital copies of art contain nothing but art, and are subject to nothing but copyright law.

If copyright does not protect the art itself, art is not owned. That is something you disagree with, since profiting off of copies of KATG without owning KATG is something you think should be illegal.

As far as the iPod shit goes, that is my proposed compromise brokered between the consumer and the artist. You want that to be illegal, so that you can tear the whole system down.

Originally Posted by yoav

how can you possibly believe that's not theft of a digital copy, it's unauthorized reproduction of the art according to you. Do you think you're purchasing the copyrights when you buy a cd? cause you're not. your blind instistance that a digital copy has value, while at the same time deciding sometimes digital copies don't have value is a massive contradiction in your logic and statements. and why your model is completely impractical.

See? You have to associate me with the RIAA.

They do have value, but it's a compromise made between the interests of the consumer and the artist.

Don't try to pretend that the implications of the two are the same.

Originally Posted by yoav

in fact you're agreeing with me in your last paragraph that because digital copies are not inherently self limiting, we have to change the fuckin model. It's changed before, it's not a big deal, it'll change several more times as society evolves. we all get a little afraid sometimes of change, but it's ok, life is gonna be ok.

I'm not talking about feasibility, you fucking idiot, AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED.

APPARENTLY YOU CAN'T READ.

I'M TALKING ETHICS.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEFT HAS BECOME INEVITABLE, WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WRONG.

Yoav can no longer quote me, because he would be forced to address the points he avoided.

The fact that the only part of my post that he referenced was my bold text in quoting him shows that he is the one who did not read a thing. I will then repost my old post, because it has not been addressed.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

Yoav did not address any of this. He only tried to associate what I have said with the RIAA. He knows that he cannot prove me wrong, so he tries desperately to tie the RIAA to me, and then he can attack me by attacking the RIAA.