how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Nebraskacountrygirl]

Originally Posted by PFT

I vote to end this thread, i can't read this much without it going anywhere

First: You took banisters_mind's picture for your profile pic????? HA HA HA!!!

Second: It's hard to follow even if you've been following since day one like myself. It really doesn't go anywhere. Yoav thinks he's right, Bob thinks he's right. It just goes back and forth and gets no where. Glad to catch you up though.

[dzagama]

We all agree that the RIAA is outmoded and exploitative.

We all agree that artists should be able to make a living and maintain all rights to their art.

What we disagree on is assigning value to something as metaphysically arbitrary as digital content.

However, the analog world is similarly an arbitrary distribution of matter and momentum.

We can argue that an MP3 file is effectively a hexadecimal number; people are assigning value to numbers; yet, isn't that true of the universe in general?

A live performance is simply the arbitrary position and vibration of matter. All of which can be represented by a sufficiently large integer, or sequence of integers.

All information, all literature, even the state of the entire, fucking, Universe, can be represented as an integer.

However, seeing it this way, seeing the truth, is seeing the trees and not the forest.

Only a few integers, out of the infinite void, in a similarly arbitrary way, give us a feeling of enjoyment.

Only a few, of the infinite arrangements of atoms, are functionally useful.

Perhaps it's not the number we assign value to in a Capitalistic economy.

Perhaps it's the process of discovering the pleasurable/useful integers and arrangements of matter that we reward with value.

-

Anyways, I'm happy with the status quo of artists having the option to release content under whatever license they choose. And being able to sue the pants off of people who break that license.

I'll continue to boycott institutions which abuse that system.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by golgi body

...

i'm not being a cunt, i'm just not your secretary. i don't want to repeat myself another 10 times just because you decided you don't want to read the thread. if you read the thread and have a new angle, comment, or insight i'd be happy to talk about it.

same goes for bob, if you're talking ethics then you and i have a different set, and furthermore if you're strictly talking ethics and theory and i'm strictly talking practicality then we're incompatible. in theory and following the british royalty's set of ethics ghandi was wrong from picking up salt, in practice and his ethics he was not.

i don't know why you've been talking theory when the original article and implications etc. are already happening in practice and laws are determined based on practicality in a just society not strictly theory. i don't know what you're trying to get across other than you consider me a thief, by outdated standards and ideals that have been around since the invention of the printing press, and only that long.

i find it strange to read your responses as they seem to pattern after mine except that your points are contradictory and often don't argue anything, you say you already stated this or that but you didn't. maybe you intended to?

your arguments have actually been:

• yoav isn't witty enough(comparing me to pft, well comon i can't compete with that)
• yoav doesn't know enough musicians to have an opinion or insight into their wants
• yoav talks in a confusing way
• yoav didn't copy and paste enough quotes of successful artists speaking out against the riaa and for piracy, he should have spent more time finding them
• yoav is a thief by bob's standard of ethics
• yoav is a (fill in random shouting and swearing)
• that talking about bob's ethics regarding piracy have anything to do with telling the riaa to fuck off(you've been way off topic)
• yoav is a socialist (well, i'm a democratic socialist, free healthcare ftw)
• yoav hates artists(??? wtf)
• yoav hates art(??? double wtf)

i think the fact that what i'm saying is confusing you is a clear sign that it's been going over your head. i think that's the definition of something going over your head. look at me, now i'm talking theory.

[Cretaceous Bob]

I have severed your head, and your hands continue to punch wildly, knowingly only that that was the last directive given.

I have proven that you acknowledge that copyright exists. You cannot dispute that, so you just try to say that no one understands you.

I am not talking theory, I am talking ethics. The very real ethical ramifications of violating artists' rights. You cannot dispute the points about ethics that I have put forth, so you instead fall back on the defense that thievery is wide-spread. The majority of a people perpetrating a wrong does not make that wrong any less heinous, or make any of the negative ramifications of those actions any less negative.

By yoav's logic, slavery would not have been slavery, or morally reprehensible, so long as the people who committed it did not believe it to be so.

And that defense is his entire defense, as he has jettisoned every other point he has ever tried to make in this thread. Steadfast refusal to acknowledge the negative impact of one's actions is not something I can ever respect or condone.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I have severed your head, and your hands continue to punch wildly, knowingly only that that was the last directive given.

I have proven that you acknowledge that copyright exists. You cannot dispute that, so you just try to say that no one understands you.

I am not talking theory, I am talking ethics. The very real ethical ramifications of violating artists' rights. You cannot dispute the points about ethics that I have put forth, so you instead fall back on the defense that thievery is wide-spread. The majority of a people perpetrating a wrong does not make that wrong any less heinous, or make any of the negative ramifications of those actions any less negative.

By yoav's logic, slavery would not have been slavery, or morally reprehensible, so long as the people who committed it did not believe it to be so.

And that defense is his entire defense, as he has jettisoned every other point he has ever tried to make in this thread. Steadfast refusal to acknowledge the negative impact of one's actions is not something I can ever respect or condone.

i never denied the existence of copyrights, how is that even a point?

ethics are theory, and they are subjective.

again you go off topic and incorrectly extrapolate my views into slavery? you're a weird guy, but since you went there copyright was invented by some of the biggest slave owners in known history. even so this thread has nothing to do with slavery.

i have no defence against you because we're talking about two different things. i'm talking about the real world, and you're not. i think it's characteristic of you to announce "yoav is talking about this and that" and incorrectly at that because you don't understand what i'm talking about, so you invent a fictional yoav to argue against. it's quite fascinating watching you though and since you're not actually responding to what i'm saying but instead to your limited grasp of the concepts i've introduced and your fictional demonization of me, then why should you be slowed down waiting for a response from me that you don't read or understand?

i give you full permission to continue the discussion you've been having with yourself, with yourself, and find it very entertaining.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

i never denied the existence of copyrights

If an artist owns art, taking it is stealing it.

End of story.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

If an artist owns art, taking it is stealing it.

End of story.

clearly that's where your comprehension of this vastly complex issue ends.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

clearly that's where your comprehension of this vastly complex issue ends.

Does a digital copy of art not contain art?

The only way a digital copy of art could not fall under copyright protection is if there is nothing copyrighted on it.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Does a digital copy of art not contain art?

The only way a digital copy of art could not fall under copyright protection is if there is nothing copyrighted on it.

why do you think it's not theft, to purchase a cd, and make a digital copy onto your ipod. why does that digital copy not have value? why do you not acknowledge that it goes against the artist's rights to control their content in that instance?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

why do you think it's not theft, to purchase a cd, and make a digital copy onto your ipod. why does that digital copy not have value? why do you not acknowledge that it goes against the artist's rights to control their content in that instance?

Fucking seriously?

How can you claim to know that I cannot understand what you say, when you clearly are unwilling or unable to read the actual thread?