how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Nebraskacountrygirl

I get books on CD from the liabrary, I put them on my ipod so I can' listen to them anywhere, then delete them when I'm done with them. Does this constitude stealing? I hope not. (I'm on the side of no stealing)

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).

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

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

I'm sorry I've been portrayed as a rebellious thief. I do not advocate theft. I do encourage progressive change. I don't steal music, but I don't pay for it, either. I stream it or I get a copy from a friend (remember old bootleg tapes?).

No worries, however I think the bootleg tape concept has been discussed before. The problem with digital bootlegging is the scale at which it occurs. Physical bootlegging is naturally self-limiting.

Originally Posted by j2x

i agree that it is very black and white as the law is currently written: if you steal it you can be charged with theft. I am advocating changing the law.

I agree that society and law should be dynamic, but from the statements in this thread, I'm not sure what you and yoav are arguing the laws should be changed to. How can a market for digital content exist, under the premise that the digital content is the marketing, and the t-shirt or concert ticket is the actual product?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

I don't believe this is a proper argument. Businesses and governments have been made obsolete or "bankrupt" throughout history because of all sorts of negative reasons. War, death, theft, embezzlement, etc. These are all forces of human nature that have forever been and will forever be. To succeed is to adapt.

you may not WANT a business to close due to theft, but that's an idealistic opinion that's not going to stand in the way of it happening.

Now you are saying thievery is inevitable.

1) That's not my point; my point is only that it is wrong. Which it is. You can't possibly say otherwise, unless you professionally eat cock and your keyboard regularly malfunctions because of vomited jizz after a hard day's work.

2) I say theft can be stopped. Anti-theft bitching from major players has gotten Comcast to cap uploads for P2P programs. What happens if there's more of that? And more of these ridiculous lawsuits? Torrent sites have been running from the law, and the law is catching up with them. The war's not over, thieves.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

you may not WANT a business to close due to theft, but that's an idealistic opinion that's not going to stand in the way of it happening.

Why should the law change to support the thief?

Business is what economies run on.

EDIT: okies, ill shut up. robert is much better at this den i am.

[j2x]

wow, I don't have nearly enough time to waste on this very important topic. Seriously, I would love to really get into this but I have actual money to make at my job.

In conclusion, theft is inevitable but people will continue to buy things that are worthwhile to them. Please point to an article that spells out conclusively that music sales are down due to illegal digital distribution. I don't believe such a study has been made- but I would be very curious to read it if it has.

Markets change quickly and if you're in the business of selling goods or services then I'm sure you know you need to adapt to the current trends- or you'll suffer. I'm talking pure capitalism here, taking all the legal shit out of the equation, just from a purely supply & demand perspective.

Whether it is legal or not to download will not stop people from downloading. Comcast will throttle and someone else will figure a way around it- or people will just leave Comcast for another more liberal provider. Hackers have been circumventing copyprotection for as long as digital media has existed.

I am simply saying that the traditional monetizing method we're all used to is evolving as alternative revenue sources are developed. Remember hearing Chemda talk about how hard it was to get advertisers to recognize KATG's audience numbers? All these things are very new and are sure to change dramatically- but it is ignorant, I think, to believe that it would be better for the artist (more profit) and the consumer (cheaper) if we relied on bureaucracy and litigation to solve the problem.

[cbooty]

I think most people don't have a problem with the concept of paying for music - they merely have a problem with the amount being charged.

With the evolution of digital distribution, the value of all media has fallen. It's easier to create, easier to distribute and thus will increase the supply and thus if demand stays the same, the price will fall. The reason it didn't initially is because of the oligopoly the music industry has. If musicians were allowed to charge a variable rate for their product (like Radiohead could, being independant) the price would have adjusted to what the market deemed fair.

Instead, the music industry tried to maintain prices and people were given the choice of either paying $0.99 a song or $0 (steal it). I bet a lot of people would be happy to pay 5-10 cents a song, but since they aren't given the option, they round down because the music industry have priced themselves out of the market.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by cbooty

I think most people don't have a problem with the concept of paying for music - they merely have a problem with the amount being charged.

That's a reason to not buy it.

Not a reason to steal it.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

That's a reason to not buy it.

Not a reason to steal it.

And that's the point of contention.

The thieves want to eat the cake.

They don't have the patience for "pure" capitalism.

Instead, they want to undermine its very foundation.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by dzagama

And that's the point of contention.

The thieves want to eat the cake.

They don't have the patience for "pure" capitalism.

Instead, they want to undermine its very foundation.

I don't think they're undermining anything. They've always been there and always will be.

Some would say that capitalism itself is founded on who can cheat the best, but that's a whole nother conversation.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by j2x

I don't think they're undermining anything. They've always been there and always will be.

Some would say that capitalism itself is founded on who can cheat the best, but that's a whole nother conversation.

You have to realize that I agree with you on a lot of your points.

The happy medium is the stasis formed by your opinion and mine.