how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Just because it has a price tag? You must have had some kind of personal trauma where someone took something you "put a price tag on".
What if someone steals something and then puts a price tag on it and resells it to you? Companies you support have done this.
What if the original creator of something says "I want to give this away for free", but a 3rd party won't let them? Or copies their idea and sells it anyway? I feel I now have the right to have that for free, as an extra "fuck you" to the people who shouldn't have a say in the matter.

Obviously that's not what I'm talking about, is it?

Did yoav or the woman from this article steal from people who wanted to give their stuff away? Or did they steal from people who wanted to get paid?

You get my point, you're just being arbitrary.

Originally Posted by yoav

Do you agree with having music that is so locked down it's a hassle to transfer to another computer? Do you think it's ok to pay for that? Now that iTunes finally has DRM free music, they decided it would be a good idea to charge you another 30 cents per song that you already bought, to be able to use it the way "thieves" have been able to use their music all along. Sorry, but if you cause me 1 minute of aggravation, I'm going elsewhere. I don't have time for stress for a damn song.

You can buy a CD. It's not that hard.

Originally Posted by yoav

a) all of your claims are from someone that doesn't pirate, so they are invalid and assumptions based on your own bias. I am making claims based on personal experience, articles, the state of the industry and higher thinking. please go pirate and come back when you have enough background to participate in this thread. or at least admit that you've been to the porn thread, and are a complete hypocrite.

What the fuck is wrong with you? The only possible bias is from someone who doesn't pirate?

I am making claims based on personal experience, articles, the industry, people from the industry, musicians themselves, and a vast array of other examples of pirates causing problems for content creators in other media.

What insight could I possibly glean from stealing? How in the world would that have any affect on the ethical implications of stealing?

Originally Posted by yoav

b) this thread has nothing to do with theft

Except for that it's about an article about theft.

Originally Posted by yoav

c) there is no price tag on a pirated music file, just as there is no price tag on the digital copy nebraska made onto her ipod. (correction there is no price tag until the riaa decides it's worth $80,000), MANY artists who are signed with record companies that contribute to the riaa speak out against their frivolous lawsuits.

Just because someone's against the lawsuits doesn't mean they don't want you to pay for it. If that were the case, you would have said it that way, rather than the way you did.

I said this at page 1 or 2: I'm anti-RIAA, and I'm anti-thief.

If this was a thread about someone getting sued for copying shit they bought onto their iPod, I wouldn't have said fuck that lady. But that isn't what the latest lawsuit is about, is it?

Originally Posted by yoav

c#) Artists blast record companies over lawsuits against downloaders - one of many articles new and old and examples

That article quotes artists who want to get paid for what they do, but do not agree with what the RIAA does. If your memory spanned more than a few days, you would remember that that is exactly what I am saying.

Originally Posted by yoav

d) the only idealist in this thread is you, and it's an idealism based on complete and utter ignorance, and shouting because you're not actually saying anything. 90% of your posts in this thread are identical, and none of them have to do with the thread, they're all based on attacking me on a personal level.

1) Artists do want to get paid for their work. This is made clear through the fact that you could name less than a handful of bands who are giving their work away for free. Whether or not they think theft is inevitable is not the issue; they want to get paid. Even if the record labels are dissolved, they still want to get paid for their work. Stealing it is rendering nothing to them.

2) It's ignorant now to say that stealing somebody's hard work is wrong? Fine, I'm ignorant, you thieving fuck.

3) Yes, I'm attacking you on a personal level. Because you are a shitty person who shits on artists and then claims to be fostering a "renaissance" of art.

4) Yes, evidently I'm an idealist. Turns out you're a piece of shit, and it was too hopeful of me to think that you wouldn't be. You're still a piece of shit, though.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Many of those quotes are anti-RIAA, not pro-free shit.

For example, you quote the dude from Disturbed, but in the article he says the iTunes store is the way to go. As in paid content.

If you properly quoted the pro-free shit people, you'd be back to the same handful of artists you mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Who, as you said, are giving stuff away for free.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Many of those quotes are anti-RIAA, not pro-free shit.

For example, you quote the dude from Disturbed, but in the article he says the iTunes store is the way to go. As in paid content.

If you properly quoted the pro-free shit people, you'd be back to the same handful of artists you mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Who, as you said, are giving stuff away for free.

a digital copy has no value, the artists you're referring to do not create digital copies for distribution nor do they put a price tag on it, nor do they gain or lose money by digital copies propagating. the pirates who consume digital copies do not pay for them.

therefore there is no value for a digital copy set by producer or consumer. which in a capitalist society is how value is determined.

in this case, the price of digital copies is set solely by the riaa and the legal system. that is indicitive of a dictatorship, an oligarchy.

you can argue that itunes and amazon put a price on digital copies but they don't, they put a price on distribution, both the artist and consumer pay for this distribution. amazon and itunes both offer drm-free music, because a digital copy has no value.

the riaa, which is NOT representative of the artists, claims a digital copy costs up to $150,000. you've stated you don't agree with that. i have never heard of ANYONE agreeing with that unless they are bribed to do so. in fact even then more than 90% of the time in the us the jury rules in favour of what you call a thief. but because the mothers of these 12 year olds being sued are so confused and unwilling to spend tens of thousands in litigation settle for thousands outside of court over a few digital copies.

who are you arguing for or against? it's not a thief, because the people you are accusing of being theifs are taking something that has no value. like air, or letters of the alphabet.

when you started yelling in this thread you seemed ignorant, but with all the information, links and articles, quotes and opinions in this thread you continually contradict yourself, and are on top of that a raging hypocrit.

i can't conceive of what your motive is or who you represent as your arguments are only inline with the uninformed and the riaa, yet you renounce them. and so i agree with the assesment that you're an internet troll and request that your post count be halved as at least that amount was likely due to trolling.

[j2x]

jesus, i'm glad you've got the time to put into these arguments. I'm just sitting here nodding my head in complete agreement with everything you just said. Doesn't happen every time, but in this case I think you're dead on and being completely thorough and reasonable in your argument, despite the obvious distraction.

I've long believed that digital media, being that it costs so very very little to duplicate and distribute, should cost less than a physical product, but I've never taken it to the next level and concluded that something that has no value, or only an artificial value, cannot actually be stolen because it doesn't really belong to anyone.

Artists retain a copyright to their work which insures that no one will be able to make money off of their work and they will continue to earn obvious revenue through concerts and advertising and merchandise, but the digital copies of their music should only further market themselves to the world and therefor increase revenue through other means, but charging for something that is free to duplicate and distribute is ridiculous.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

when you started yelling in this thread you seemed ignorant, but with all the information, links and articles, quotes and opinions in this thread you continually contradict yourself, and are on top of that a raging hypocrit.

Not a single thing I've said has contradicted itself, and I do not illegally download music.

You're resorting to lying and insisting that a product that required time, effort, and money to make is worth nothing.

You have no respect for art or artists, which is clear through valuing art at zero, and artists' time as nothing.

The only case you have for me being a hypocrite is the assumption that I've been in the porn thread, whatever that is. I don't give a shit for whatever porn thread goes on here, and you won't find a single post from me in it.

I have asked you both what either of you have ever done artistically, and, despite your blustering at my accusations, NEITHER OF YOU HAVE SAID SHIT.

I have pointed out that if your stupid babble about the inevitable changes of the industry were true, you would not need to steal.

Artists do want to get paid for digital copies of their work, and you're telling them to fuck off. The most you can bring to me otherwise is a handful of people who already got rich through the old business model. And Merit. But that's it.

The fact remains that it is PIRATES NOT ARTISTS who are causing this change in the industry, and if artists did want to give their shit away for free, that would not be the case.

Artists want you to pay for their content, and you are shitting on their face. You do not care for art, you are just a thief, as I said, fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) did not ask you to, and 2) do not agree with you.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You can buy a CD. It's not that hard.

I don't want to. How old are you anyway?
I don't even own a CD player, besides the drive in my computer. The few times I've bought an actual CD was because the music was not for sale digitally, was not on any P2P service, and there was a cheap promo CD available. I have no idea where those disks even are. I open them, burn them, toss them aside.

They will give me music, movies, games, books, the way I want them or I will take them however I can get them. If I could PayPal 5$ to some band and have them send me a clean copy of their CD in an email, I'd do that instead of 20$ for a disc I don't need, where the artist gets none of that money.

Ya know when I stopped "stealing" PC games? When Steam came out. They had what I wanted, instantly, my way.

And I've still...heard about people downloading games that the publishers refuse to put up on a digital service. The option is there, they need to adapt if they want our money.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

I don't want to. How old are you anyway?

20. It's not just for the old folks.

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

I don't even own a CD player, besides the drive in my computer.

That's all you need. Rip it to your computer and you have DRM free copies. Which, as I have stated before, is somewhere that I disagree with current copyright law, and find to be ethically sound.

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

The few times I've bought an actual CD was because the music was not for sale digitally, was not on any P2P service, and there was a cheap promo CD available. I have no idea where those disks even are. I open them, burn them, toss them aside.

They will give me music, movies, games, books, the way I want them or I will take them however I can get them. If I could PayPal 5$ to some band and have them send me a clean copy of their CD in an email, I'd do that instead of 20$ for a disc I don't need, where the artist gets none of that money.

No, they do see part of that.

Originally Posted by ThisIsMyUserName

Ya know when I stopped "stealing" PC games? When Steam came out. They had what I wanted, instantly, my way.

And I've still...heard about people downloading games that the publishers refuse to put up on a digital service. The option is there, they need to adapt if they want our money.

That makes more sense than flat out saying stealing is okay. If you're willing to pay for the content in some manner, that doesn't make stealing it right (it's still shitty), but at least the content provider can do something to secure your purchase.

[j2x]

I am a professional architect. I draw pretty houses, mostly for clients in China.



This is as much art as it is professional understanding of construction, materials, and the client.

Yes, I expect to get paid for the time I spend working on a design. However, me and the company I work for know full well that most of the drawings we send to China are going to be copied. Literally, the drawings we produce will be used to build other projects. This is the nature of our industry and we fight it by staying ahead of our competition.

When the economy started to tank two years ago a lot of our competition, other medium to large production architecture firms based out of southern california, many of them collapsed. They weren't able to stay flexible in this challenging market. Our Chinese clients started doing more work in-house (ie: duplicating work we had produced).

The only way we were able to stay around (albeit at a fraction of our size) is to continually produce new designs that are in demand. That is the only way we can continue to receive new business- by staying inventive and accepting the industry and the world for what it is.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

That's all you need. Rip it to your computer and you have DRM free copies. Which, as I have stated before, is somewhere that I disagree with current copyright law, and find to be ethically sound.

No, they do see part of that.

But my point is that I don't think CD's are worth the price. As a kid I made tapes of everything on the radio, when we could download stuff I moved to that. CD's have always been a last desperate resort and usually only when they're heavily discounted or something. I actually can't think of a CD I've ever paid full price for.

Also, the labels tried to go to court to prevent the promo CD's from being sold because they didn't see a cut. They lost.

New RIAA Argument: Throwing A Promo CD In The Garbage = Unauthorized Distribution | Techdirt

"UMG claimed that the CDs, as promotional items, were still the property of Universal Music Group."
"UMG has now filed a brief that says that throwing out a promotional CD is unauthorized distribution. "
"Effectively, UMG is saying that merely by putting some fine print on a CD, it can effectively "own" that CD forever."

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

I am a professional architect. I draw pretty houses, mostly for clients in China.



This is as much art as it is professional understanding of construction, materials, and the client.

Yes, I expect to get paid for the time I spend working on a design. However, me and the company I work for know full well that most of the drawings we send to China are going to be copied. Literally, the drawings we produce will be used to build other projects. This is the nature of our industry and we fight it by staying ahead of our competition.

When the economy started to tank two years ago a lot of our competition, other medium to large production architecture firms based out of southern california, many of them collapsed. They weren't able to stay flexible in this challenging market. Our Chinese clients started doing more work in-house (ie: duplicating work we had produced).

The only way we were able to stay around (albeit at a fraction of our size) is to continually produce new designs that are in demand. That is the only way we can continue to receive new business- by staying inventive and accepting the industry and the world for what it is.

This echos what you've said before: that you recognize that theft, in some cases, is inevitable, or at least wide-spread.

But surely you can agree that, if you want to get paid for your designs, you should be paid, and they should not be stolen?

Your situation does mirror that of much art, and the coping mechanisms artists are using to deal with theft. Whether or not they can recoup their losses is not the issue, though; if someone creates a unique work, it should be theirs to distribute, and dictate how it is distributed.