how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Now that music is a tad cheaper with the Amazon sales and lower priced tracks, this guy that knows this other guy told me they've been going that route. But that guy that the other guys knows will get a song the easiest way they can.
That guy will apparently exclusively pay for music when every song ever made is easily available, high quality, DRM free, requires no extra software to download, and isn't more than 10...20? cents per song.
They have a long way to go. Especially Apple who just raised their prices.

[cbooty]

So, what I'm curious about is all the people vigorously defending copyright law, do you:

-Not have *any* shared, backedup music or mix cd/tapes (is so, really??)
-Not watch any copyrighted material on Youtube (that's stealing ad revenue from original creator)?
-Ever sing happy birthday? (you're supposed to pay performance rights for it - that's why no restaurants sing it)
-Use a TIVO or Slingbox?
-Watch a sporting event with a dozen friends (again public performance)?

The concept of stealing gets muddy pretty fast with intellectual property.

My point is this is not a black/white issue.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Now you are saying thievery is inevitable.
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.

Torrents will soon be anonymous and intelligent people will pick their provider based on not being limited. Comcast are a bunch of assholes anyway and I don't know who would choose to do business with them. I'm probably a little on the extreme side, but I won't even buy products from a company like Sony or Apple because I don't like how they do business. I don't like the tone of voice their execs speak in. That's enough for me. Trying to cap data and impose ridiculous fees, whether I'd use it all or not, is also a good enough reason to not use Comcast.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by cbooty

So, what I'm curious about is all the people vigorously defending copyright law, do you:

-Not have *any* shared, backedup music or mix cd/tapes (is so, really??)
-Not watch any copyrighted material on Youtube (that's stealing ad revenue from original creator)?
-Ever sing happy birthday? (you're supposed to pay performance rights for it - that's why no restaurants sing it)
-Use a TIVO or Slingbox?
-Watch a sporting event with a dozen friends (again public performance)?

The concept of stealing gets muddy pretty fast with intellectual property.

My point is this is not a black/white issue.

Who's defending copyright law? The issue that I'm arguing for is very simple: Artists should be compensated for digital content.

Who needs government to dictate morality, especially with something as straight forward as album sales and book sales?

The issues you bring up are complexities that arise when determining the amount of compensation.

If we were all completely ethical, DRM would not exist. "Used" MP3s could be sold like used CDs, etc.

All the bullshit arises from people wanting to enjoy something, in perpetuity, for free.

The endless debate, unfortunately, is essential to our system.

Neither of our perspectives, taken to the extreme, is optimal.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Torrents will soon be anonymous and intelligent people will pick their provider based on not being limited. Comcast are a bunch of assholes anyway and I don't know who would choose to do business with them. I'm probably a little on the extreme side, but I won't even buy products from a company like Sony or Apple because I don't like how they do business. I don't like the tone of voice their execs speak in. That's enough for me. Trying to cap data and impose ridiculous fees, whether I'd use it all or not, is also a good enough reason to not use Comcast.

Why is it not possible to extend your Sony/Apple logic to RIAA-backed music?

You don't steal Apple's IP, do you? You avoid it completely.

[cbooty]

Originally Posted by dzagama

Who's defending copyright law? The issue that I'm arguing for is very simple: Artists should be compensated for digital content.

Every example of copyright law I gave is an instance where someone thinks they should be compensated but generally aren't. Isn't singing happy birthday stealing performance rights the same way downloading a mp3 is stealing revenue? If not, what's the difference? Some artist wrote happy birthday and someone (AOL) owns the right to it. Why shouldn't they be compensated the same way?

What drives me nuts about this is people want to oversimplify a complicated issue.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by dzagama

Why is it not possible to extend your Sony/Apple logic to RIAA-backed music?

You don't steal Apple's IP, do you? You avoid it completely.

The same logic can't apply to every situation. I don't even know what that Gandhi thing was about.
I will not buy an iPhone/iPod anything, because Apple's model is locking down everything you do with their devices, overcharging and under delivering, much like Sony. There are phones and mp3 players that have had all these features for years, only without the marketing and pretty box. And while I realize that many components of an iPod were maybe bought from other companies and slapped together into an "Apple" product, that isn't the same... if that was even your argument.
It's a lot easier to see the giant Sony or Apple logo on something and keep walking, than see "Greedy bitches" listed on every single CD. I'm not doing homework to listen to a few songs. I know I've bought from services that were exclusively indie, and direct from band's sites. I can only hope that somehow that money didn't get to the RIAA.
For an example of my insane logic and morality, I love AC/DC. When their new album came out, I was thrilled and when I got home, expected to jump on Amazon and buy it... but I couldn't find it. I did some more searching on their site and others, and found they didn't want to put it up digitally because I guess they don't like 1's and 0's. They're old and don't understand the internet. I will not buy a CD (besides the 3$ promo CD's I've snagged off Amazon). If I couldn't get the music ANY other way, I wouldn't listen to that CD ever in my life. Unfortunately for them, there are easier ways to get it without making my life more difficult. They lose 15-20-25$ (I have no idea how much a full price CD is anymore) because they wouldn't do things my (the customer's) way. I'm fully aware this makes me a baby and horrible person. Possibly worse than Hitler. But it's my money and if I'm willing to shell it out for something I like, a company can be reasonable and meet me halfway. I'm not preventing anyone else from getting their songs, and I'm not sending them to other people. Stealing a physical product like an iPod also doesn't fall under the same category of downloading a song/movie/game that you would have otherwise not bought.

This is the longest thing I've written since 12th grade. I'm in a really bad mood tonight.

Incidentally, has the porn industry ever complained about this? They pull in billions and a lot of stuff posted for download on free sites is definitely from DVD's. Is everyone a criminal for jerking off now?
The jerk bank on these very forums have pictures that somewhere down the line, the idea was to pay for them. And getting back to music, Keith plays a lot of songs on the feed that I'm almost 100% sure he could get busted for. It's low quality and absurd to police that anyway, but other podcasts have gotten heat for it. To the RIAA, it's still stealing their hard earned billions.

[cbooty]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

I don't even know what that Gandhi thing was about.

Basically in India the British government tried to impose a salt tax and made it illegal to pick up naturally occurring salt. This gave a very abundant commodity (salt) a value that it would not normally have had and which could only be maintained with strongarm legal tactics.

My point is there's a parallel with digital distribution because there's $0 cost to produce additional units, just like there was no cost to produce salt. Ghandi simply picked up salt in an act of defiance and I think a lot of file sharers think they are doing the same thing.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Basically in India the British government tried to impose a salt tax and made it illegal to pick up naturally occurring salt. This gave a very abundant commodity (salt) a value that it would not normally have had and which could only be maintained with strongarm legal tactics.

My point is there's a parallel with digital distribution because there's $0 cost to produce additional units, just like there was no cost to produce salt. Ghandi simply picked up salt in an act of defiance and I think a lot of file sharers think they are doing the same thing.

Ahhhhh I see. I didn't read through it enough. Yea that makes sense. I was certainly pissed that if I want to listen to this band in 2009, I have to put pants on and go outside. I just hope soon all these artists will represent themselves and charge a fair price. Cutting out the middle man always saves money.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Cutting out the middle man always saves money.

and earns the artist/manufacturer/service provider greater profit, too.