how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by dzagama

DJ Trashy, you're right, but you provide no justification for denying content creators the option for legal recourse.

I did not say that they should be denied that option. I simply believe they are on shaky legal ground. The Jammie Thomas case will most likely be appealed. The judge is already on record that the original $220,000 award was oppressive, it's doubtful he likes the $1.9 Million award any better.

From what I gather part of the accusation from Capitol was that the songs were merely made available. There was no charge as to actual distribution. Again, murky waters here. I won't be surprised to see this overturned on appeal.

[BrownEyedBtch]

So again, if digital copies have no value, and it isn't theft, then what was the woman in the article convicted of?

[dzagama]

Well, then, this has been 9 pages of nothing.

No one's disagreeing about the fundamental issue of artists having the right to create the market in any way they see fit.

If an artist wants to sell an MP3 with a license that forbids copying, then they have that right.

One has the right to accept those terms, or boycott the artist.

One has the right to break the terms of the license, and be rightfully called a thief.

If an artist wants to distribute an MP3 in the public domain, they have that right.

All this talk about inevitability is silly. All crime is inevitable.

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by dzagama

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

The only inevitability is the eventual transformation or elimination of the middleman. Bands and film producers can now handle production and distribution either by themselves or through third-party companies. Authors are producing free audio versions of books, and then still hitting the NY Times Bestseller list when it comes out in print, all without major publishing house backing. This does not require the giving up of copyright. Neither does it require teams of lawyers hounding citizens.

The creators, all of them and not just a select few chosen by existing power-brokers, can make more money per creation than ever before. They don't get the up-front money loan, but they make a lot more in the long run. It's a win-win.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy

The only inevitability is the eventual transformation or elimination of the middleman. Bands and film producers can now handle production and distribution either by themselves or through third-party companies. Authors are producing free audio versions of books, and then still hitting the NY Times Bestseller list when it comes out in print, all without major publishing house backing. This does not require the giving up of copyright. Neither does it require teams of lawyers hounding citizens.

The creators, all of them and not just a select few chosen by existing power-brokers, can make more money per creation than ever before. They don't get the up-front money loan, but they make a lot more in the long run. It's a win-win.

I wish we'd just gotten to this point much sooner in this thread.

I (and I'm pretty sure, Bob) have never argued "for" the RIAA. Fuck 'em. But, the artists that were stupid enough to sign contracts with RIAA-backed labels, knowingly, signed contracts with companies that licensed their music under licenses which were not public-domain.

Unfortunately, that means that we can't consider RIAA-backed music public-domain, no matter how much we, or the artists, wish it were.

I'm happy to support independent artists, but if an artist wants to solely create digital content, and not support their act with touring or merchandise, they have the right to try to make a living in that fashion.

If KATG decides that they want to sell their shows for $0.10 a piece, under a restrictive license, they have that right.

I don't have some inherent right to circumvent their desire. I can opt-in, or say fuck'em.

No one is against file sharing, they are against piracy.

There's a difference.

[dzagama]

So, to try to bring down the RIAA by saying, "information should be free, maaaan", is counter-productive.

Stop listening to RIAA-backed music, listen to artists on emusic, archive.org, etc, and the RIAA will adapt, or die.

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

Her mistake.

[dzagama]

Fuck.

Actually reedin' Bob's new posts in this thread makes me feel a bit silly.

The point of contention appears to be: should artists be able to charge money for something that can be reproduced infinitely at zero-cost.

Bob and I seem to think so.

j2x, and possibly yoav, appear to think not.

Lots of things in the real-world have prices that don't reflect the actual cost of manufacture.

CDs, DVDs, printed artwork, architectural blueprints (maybe?), etc.

Things are priced above the cost of manufacture because of some innate value we give art and innovation, which extends beyond the media.

Why is any duplicated idea, realized in a physical form, priced above the cost of manufacture?

Why should things be different in the digital world?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

have i stated my love for you recently?

it's amazing how quick that bob guy forgets how i unequivocally proved i was not a thief in multiple contexts, and how he continues to accuse me of being one and not any of the other people who've posted here about the same things i have, nor admitted his own thief morals were in fact thief morals, bob is pious and his god serves him and him only.

Your very first response to me was in defense of pirating.

My problem with you is that you 1) pirate music without owning a legal copy of the same music, and 2) that you defend doing so.

Even if the first isn't true (which I very highly doubt), the second definitely is.

Originally Posted by yoav

almost like he's got something against me specifically, he never lashed out at browneyedbitch or nebraska for being thieves.. i think no matter what the topic of this thread was he would have lashed out at me for 15 pages without making a valid point once or staying on topic. at least he's passionate about his hate towards me, gotta respect passion.

I never lashed out at browneyedbitch or nebraska for being thieves either.

I have stayed on topic for this entire thread, so accusations that I'm hating on you without basis are unfounded. I have given my reason, and that reason has been clear in every single one of my posts.

Originally Posted by dzagama

Well, then, this has been 9 pages of nothing.

No one's disagreeing about the fundamental issue of artists having the right to create the market in any way they see fit.

If an artist wants to sell an MP3 with a license that forbids copying, then they have that right.

One has the right to accept those terms, or boycott the artist.

One has the right to break the terms of the license, and be rightfully called a thief.

If an artist wants to distribute an MP3 in the public domain, they have that right.

All this talk about inevitability is silly. All crime is inevitable.

By acquiescing to inevitability, you deprive a very valuable subset of society, the creators, the ability to create.

Originally Posted by dzagama

The point of contention appears to be: should artists be able to charge money for something that can be reproduced infinitely at zero-cost.

Bob and I seem to think so.

j2x, and possibly yoav, appear to think not.

Lots of things in the real-world have prices that don't reflect the actual cost of manufacture.

CDs, DVDs, printed artwork, architectural blueprints (maybe?), etc.

Things are priced above the cost of manufacture because of some innate value we give art and innovation, which extends beyond the media.

Why is any duplicated idea, realized in a physical form, priced above the cost of manufacture?

Why should this be different in the digital world?

As you realized, you do not actually agree with yoav.

Your summary has been my entire and only subject throughout this entire thread.

If yoav had his way and digital copying had existed 20 years ago, Bill Watterson would be a poor man, or he would have been forced to compromise his artistic integrity.

Yoav is advocating destroying the ability for an artist to solely produce art, and it is despicable to do such a thing and claim to support art.

Contending that art has neither value nor ownership is nothing but damaging to artists, but not to merchandisers.

Essentially, yoav thinks there would be nothing wrong with me stealing a digital copy of all of the KATG DVDs and CDs, and then selling KATG merchandise I produced myself.

If he has a problem with the stealing part, he is a hypocrite. If he has a problem with me profiting off of art, that means art has ownership, which is something he deprives from artists when he steals it in the first place. If he is depriving artists of ownership, artists do lose something from people stealing digital copies of his work. Since he has stated that artists lose nothing, he contends that art has no ownership.

I find it nothing short of disgusting and vile to make such claims.

I think KATG is owned by Keith and Chemda, even though it is distributed for free. Yoav thinks otherwise. If anyone has a problem with me profiting off of their work, that person disagrees with yoav.

[dzagama]

Yeap, Cret. I'm pussyfooting cuz I like yoav.

You've been consistently correct about the issue. The naysayers seem to be extrapolating incorrectly from your initial stance that content creators should be able to assign value (a price) to digital content.

Arstechnica has a nice bit on the trial:

Richard Marx (!) attacks RIAA after $1.92M Thomas verdict - Ars Technica

FTA, Richard Marx says:


As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels. These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.

So now we have a "judgment" in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive. Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I'm ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.


Richard Marx appears to be on our side.

So, unless yoav's definition of "pirated" means, he ripped 14,200 tracks from CDs he purchased, or acquired through some monetary transaction, then he stole them; which you've said (over and over).

I'm only chiming in so that you're not the sole opposition.

Yeah, punitive settlements suck, but that's another discussion.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by dzagama

So, unless yoav's definition of "pirated" means, he ripped 14,200 tracks from CDs he purchased, or acquired through some monetary transaction, then he stole them; which you've said (over and over).

Given what he has argued, and given the nature of the original article, I am positive he is in support of acquiring art without owning paid copies of that art.

For example:

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

The above post is clearly anti-stealing.

He disagrees with me, though he tries to make record labels the main issue:

Originally Posted by yoav

even shitty dane cooks can make it big via social networking. he used one of many more appropriate models for artists to get exposure and the only talent it required was internet access.

radiohead and merit are already starting to test the waters and so are other bands, even metallica admitted that they went after napster not because they were on that side of the fence, but because they felt there were other artists that were and felt the conversation/debate/war/whatever should have a strong voice on both ends to make real change and have real impact.

there are tons of bands that have record deals and have a hard time getting exposure still, your argument doesn't hold, and you're comparing the system to a still new revolution in how we regard and manage the arts and creative thought.

the concept that i can write a poem on my blog(mine's actually cc licenced but if it wasn't) and if i see you wrote a similar poem that afternoon and can prove you visited my site SUE you and take your money for STEALING my IDEA is ridiculous, and while I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does at this point, the system NEEDS to change. the concept NEEDS to change.

that change is taking place right now, the guys from thepiratebay.org are being sued, they just appealed and in sweden the pirate party won a seat in the EU. Most green parties also support filesharing as part of their platform. even the itunes store itself was a big step, the idea that you can buy just one song and choose the quality you want it as. take a look at what creativecommons.org is doing. and open source. it's all branches off the same movement.

it's not about stealing vs. not stealing at this point, it's about a renaissance in the arts to suit our current culture and technology. record companies aren't interested in art. they're interested in putting out infomercials and making a profit.

But then he slips this bit in:

Originally Posted by yoav

you can get kicked out of university for writing an essay that's simliar to what someone else wrote even if you thought of it by yourself because our thoughts are restricted by the man, you're not free to express your thoughts. ideas are intangible and have no intrinsic value.

Essentially, he is saying that ownership of art is an invention of The Man.

He is trying to hide behind the wrongs of the RIAA so that no one notices that he is forcefully ripping the rights of artists out of their hands. We see that is the case through him trying desperately to associate me with the RIAA, despite my very clear disagreements and dissatisfaction with the RIAA.

Yoav is trying to convince us to throw away something that is not wrong because someone used it wrongly. Ownership of art should not be thrown away because of the actions of the RIAA, just like we shouldn't tear up the Constitution of the United States of America because George Bush was a dickface.