how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

first of all thanks for finally answering my questions.
i merely mentioned that dzagama also wanted you to answer the questions, i'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify his position on the issue as a whole.

No, I think he was posting those as open questions because he doesn't want to solely target you.

Originally Posted by yoav

you keep saying i admit to ownership of art and showing you don't understand what i'm saying. i believe in the artist's intent, i have not said i believe in ownership of art, you quoted a text saying i believe 'theft is taking something someone else owns' that's not the same thing at all. i went on to explain how no one should own art. you should really read the rest of that post. a misquote.

You are stunningly dense.

A: THEFT REQUIRES OWNERSHIP

B: PROFITING OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE'S ART IS THEFT

So that begs the question: what is owned when I profit off of KATG episodes rebranded as my own?

If nothing is, it is not theft, according to you. But you said it is theft, so something must be owned. WHAT?!

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as us law making goes, sometimes things are passed into law without it being the outcome of a court case bob.

link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate): Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

i suggest you view the 'printer friendly display' as some of the links to subsections don't work. while the dmca itself does not explicitly talk about digital copies relating to cd to ipod copying it makes numerous mentions and states that it does not overpower sections 109 and 117 title 17 of us copyright code. which is summarized below.

This act is entirely irrelevant. It makes circumvention of DRM illegal.

It has absolutely zero bearing AT ALL on ripping a CD to an iPod.

Originally Posted by yoav

the following is from the US Copyright office U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright and Digital Files

it turns out you're right that i misunderstood the one backup rule, it only pertains to software 'essential to run or activate the computer', not music, movies, ms word, etc. you're not allowed to make any copies of any other media or software in the states. not even for backup purposes, without the explicit consent of the copyright holder.
notice they say 'such as software or any media downloaded and stored on a hard drive' this applies to things you've paid for and own a copy of. it includes cds, records and any storage medium, as well as any means of acquiring said copies.

the only way in the current system that it would be legal to rip a cd to your ipod, is if that right is written on the cd you purchased.

No, that says that the privileges granted in Section 117 do not apply to other things. It does not say that other copies are illegal, it only says that Section 117 does not protect them.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING RIPPING A CD.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY EXAMPLE OF ANYONE EVER BEING EVEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING FOR RIPPING A CD.

This is an issue that is not clearly addressed by US law. In the meantime, however, ripping a CD is definitely effectively legal.

Also, you're going to try to argue that the system NEEDS to change because of something that never happens? Are you fucking kidding me?

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as your quote goes, i believe it was taken from a case where MGM lost against kazaa, and you've misinterpreted what they're saying,

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MGM won.

Originally Posted by yoav

they're referring to using the ipod as a backup device not as another means of listening to your music without paying for a digital copy to listen to.

What? There is no reason to assume that. The iPod is a listening device, and when the matter of ripping CDs to an iPod is discussed, it is a given that the copies are being listened to.

You want record companies to be like the RIAA so that you have a case for pirating.

Originally Posted by yoav

which as i just pointed out above is not in line with current us law.

The only thing you have ever quoted that has stated that ripping a CD is illegal is the RIAA, who are not the law.

Originally Posted by yoav

furthermore the quote you made was merely the closing remarks of MGM
and would have no grounds or impact on the law whether they'd won or lost the case. nor can it be considered legal consent to make copies of cds MGM releases.

Of course it can't, you fucking idiot.

I'm pointing out that even record companies disagree with the RIAA's assertion that ripping CDs to an iPod is illegal. Why would they then sue a consumer for ripping a CD when they believe it is legal?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Also, every US law you quoted did not address the subject of copying art for personal use. One addressed DRM, and the other only applied to software and did not criminalize anything unrelated to software.

This law doesn't explicitly apply to digital devices, but it shows an intent to protect copies of art for personal use:

Audio Home Recording Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices." <- (that's quoting Wikipedia; it is an accurate summary)

In a case involving the RIAA, a judge wrote, referring to this act: "In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.""

Edit: Oh yeah, here's a full link to the ruling:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright...0_F3d_1072.htm

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

ah perhaps i used the wrong wording and/or poor grammer, it's not theft that i was trying to convey, but the right to profit off someone else's work without their consent. theft is the wrong word here.

that profiting off someone else's work without their consent is wrong and should be illegal in my model as it violates the artist's intent, however it should be noted my model creates a world were nobody profits off other's work because it's only the application or implementation of the work that has value.

Something cannot be someone's work unless they own it.

If they do not own it, it is not theirs.

Originally Posted by yoav

i disagree with your interpretation

the laws are not explicit, but they are implicit. you likely won't be caught for ripping a cd because how could authorities ever know you did it? that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. and that doing so is considered the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content. and that if the laws are left unaltered and one day the privacy laws or policing technology changes (like when bush took away the right to privacy) it will be easier to find these cases of copyright violation. and whoever stands to benefit will be able to freely convict people based on it.

on the other hand you claim that i'm a thief, a non-us citizen guilty of a us law. how does that work?

As I have just shown with the Audio Home Recording Act, it's not illegal.

Originally Posted by yoav

that's not true, us copyright law very clearly states you're not allowed to make a copy of copyrighted content to a hard drive, even if you choose not to understand the implications, an ipod is a hard drive, and your itunes folder is stored on another hard drive.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by yoav

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts. it's like you want to misunderstand me. furthermore it's not about changing to some arbitrary scheme, i want shit changed back to the way it was when mozart was around. because that system worked, and produced great art. it's this recent copyright fiasco thought up over fear of the printing press, it's the change that copyright brought that i want annulled and art returned to it's natural organic place in the world.

You are continuing to pretend that there is a precedent for pirating. There is not.

Originally Posted by yoav

regardless of what you assume from their vague statement, it was a closing argument, a comment, not a law.

I didn't say it was, you delusional moron.

Originally Posted by yoav

a closing argument is designed to sway a jury, no record company in the usa outside that closing argument have openly advocated the copying or ripping of cds, many have spoken against it, and were even sued at one point for putting drm software that installed onto users' computers when they put a cd in without their consent. you seem to have a problem resolving context.
Labels to dampen CD burning? - CNET News
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
the fact that drm even exists is due to record labels wanting to prevent unauthorized copying of content.

They want to stop copying because of thieves, not because of personal use. Do not try to confuse the two. Your actions have caused harm to the consumers.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Also, explain to me how downloading something the artist wants you to pay for is not violating artist intent, you fucking idiot.

They intend to give you their art ONLY IF YOU PAY FOR IT. If they did not, they would give you the art for free.

Since that is the case, you are violating artist intent by pirating.

You've defeated yourself with your own system.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

it's like building a house, if you get a contractor to build you a house, the contractor does not own the house. the difference of course is that art is not an object like a house, it's abstract and should not be owned by even the person commissioning the artist to create it. but why are you asking me about that? it's in the history books, it worked for centuries.

The contractor also has zero rights to the house. That's a terrible analogy.

There has not been a model wherein art was so accessible, so easily distributed, or so easy to rebrand.

Originally Posted by yoav

the audio home recording act you linked to was in regard to the rio, which if you actually read it, you'd see that it clearly states it's not legal to copy something like a cd to the rio because the information on a cd directly represents the audio artwork, and is considered to be a copy of the artwork.

what it says is it is legal to copy a song from a hard drive to the rio's flash drive storage because hard drive's usually contain a number of data and software not pertaining to the song, and so the rio itself should not be illegal, as you're copying a song already on the hard drive.

this means that you can legally download a song off itunes, and copy it onto your ipod or music device. but you cannot copy a song from a cd to your hard drive, or your ipod, rio, or whatever.

it also stipulates that it's illegal to record a live stream off the internet onto the rio as the live stream is also considered a copy of the artwork.

you should really read and understand sources before you post.

You should really read and understand what I say before you post, as I stated in my post that the AHRA does not explicitly make ripping a CD legal. But it does show an intent to protect copies of purchased art for personal use.

YOU STILL HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE A LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES RIPPING A CD.

Regardless, you have, over the course of this, admitted that there are unethical uses of art beyond the law, and thus you admit that thievery is not an invention of the law.

Explain to me how it is ethical to violate an artist's intent.

[j2x]

ohmygod, no wonder some forum members have such high post counts. jesus christ when are you two going to realize that there's no hope in changing each other's minds?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

morally i've also covered this, when an artist releases a song on the radio they accept people will make copies as they're listening and that some of them will be satisfied with the copies. pretty much any stereo can record live radio to cassette, and most radio listening software can record it to your hard drive or phone or whatever..

Their intent is that you pay for it. They do not intend for you to acquire copies of it.

An artist's intent does not have to include people copying their work.

Artists don't intend for you to make copies through radio use either, they intend for you to simply listen to it once.

If artists intended to give you their work for free, they would. They do not.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

ohmygod, no wonder some forum members have such high post counts. jesus christ when are you two going to realize that there's no hope in changing each other's minds?

I don't care about changing his mind.

As you have demonstrated, defeating yoav affects other people's position on the issue.

You entered on his side, and left agreeing with me.

That is my purpose.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

right now

If you quit now, it's because you're running from your own stupid statements.

You already had to say you were wrong once. That count can only go up.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

someone else already asked in this thread but is there a way to block posts by intolerable people?

That's right, admit that I've won.