how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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?

i don't believe that to be a response to my question. you have not yet explained in this thread why that digital copy has no value to you while other's do.

you said previously that (i'm paraphrasing) copying a cd you purchased is not theft according to your morals. but you never explained why. probably because it obviously contradicts your argument and renders your views impractical. which i thought we both agreed on several times, before you decided to suddenly refute it and say your argument is practical.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Here, I'll break it down for you:

1) In pirating, someone who has not acquired the artist's consent is receiving his art.

2) In copying a purchased CD, someone who has acquired the artist's consent to acquire the art itself is making a copy of that art for personal use. In this scenario, and in this scenario only, do your arguments about the worth of a digital copy apply. You seem to be confused between theft as a whole and larceny. Theft of a digital entity can only be through taking art; it is never larceny to steal a digital thing. The instant those MP3s appear on a file-sharing network, though, that person has committed theft.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

you said previously that (i'm paraphrasing) copying a cd you purchased is not theft according to your morals. but you never explained why. probably because it obviously contradicts your argument and renders your views impractical. which i thought we both agreed on several times, before you decided to suddenly refute it and say your argument is practical.

My last word on this subject was, even supposing that it is theft, it is my proposed compromise between the rights of artists and the rights of consumers.

You must be blind.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

My last word on this subject was, even supposing that it is theft, it is my proposed compromise between the rights of artists and the rights of consumers.

You must be blind.

so then you condone theft?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

so then you condone theft?

Tell me why it should be considered theft, yoav.

I just told you why it shouldn't.

And I said it is a reasonable medium for people who disagree on where the line falls to compromise on.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Here, I'll break it down for you:

1) In pirating, someone who has not acquired the artist's consent is receiving his art.

2) In copying a purchased CD, someone who has acquired the artist's consent to acquire the art itself is making a copy of that art for personal use. In this scenario, and in this scenario only, do your arguments about the worth of a digital copy apply. You seem to be confused between theft as a whole and larceny. Theft of a digital entity can only be through taking art; it is never larceny to steal a digital thing. The instant those MP3s appear on a file-sharing network, though, that person has committed theft.

Since you appear to be colossally stupid, let me make this even simpler:

CASE 1: SOMEONE WHO HAS NO RIGHT TO HAVE ART GETS ART

CASE 2: SOMEONE WHO HAS RIGHT TO HAVE ART GETS ART

That's the difference. And, as you have pointed out so much over the course of this thread, it is not possible to charge someone with larceny of an MP3.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Since you appear to be colossally stupid, let me make this even simpler:

CASE 1: SOMEONE WHO HAS NO RIGHT TO HAVE ART GETS ART

CASE 2: SOMEONE WHO HAS RIGHT TO HAVE ART GETS ART

That's the difference. And, as you have pointed out so much over the course of this thread, it is not possible to charge someone with larceny of an MP3.

ok there's the confusion, this is how i see it

case 1: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

case 2: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

i see it like that cause when you purchase a cd, you're purchasing one copy of the music, and have the right to make one backup. when you purchase the rights to make digital copies all willy nilly you typically receive the masters that the work was recorded on, not a cd, which contains drm and many other measures to prevent copies being made, so by copying a song onto itunes you're completely disregarding the artists intent and their right to control their content.

this is the contradiction in your logic that i see.

[yoav]

your concept of 'the right to have art' is ridiculous.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

ok there's the confusion, this is how i see it

case 1: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

case 2: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies

i see it like that cause when you purchase a cd, you're purchasing one copy of the music, and have the right to make one backup. when you purchase the rights to make digital copies all willy nilly you typically receive the masters that the work was recorded on, not a cd, which contains drm and many other measures to prevent copies being made, so by copying a song onto itunes you're completely disregarding the artists intent and their right to control their content.

this is the contradiction in your logic that i see.

There's not a contradiction, because you're applying your and the RIAA's logic to mine.

I don't think an artist should have the right to dictate how a consumer digests the art they have purchased the right to view as long as that method is restricted to personal use. In the same token, I think somebody should be able to, if they want to, transcribe Harry Potter novels onto rolls of toilet paper for their own reading.

But EVEN IF there was a discrepancy there, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you decide to destroy copyright just because of an issue over rights to digital copies?

Of the two unfavourable scenarios, one being zero copyright, and the other being legislation wherein making digital copies of purchased art is illegal, which one is more damaging? In one, the profitability of art is decimated. In the other, the consumer simply has to purchase art in their favoured medium.

Originally Posted by yoav

your concept of 'the right to have art' is ridiculous.

Really? You don't think the art on a CD is the same as the art on an exact MP3 copy?

You have to be purposefully stupid not to recognize my point.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

There's not a contradiction, because you're applying your and the RIAA's logic to mine.

I don't think an artist should have the right to dictate how a consumer digests the art they have purchased the right to view as long as that method is restricted to personal use. In the same token, I think somebody should be able to, if they want to, transcribe Harry Potter novels onto rolls of toilet paper for their own reading.

But EVEN IF there was a discrepancy there, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you decide to destroy copyright just because of an issue over rights to digital copies?

Of the two unfavourable scenarios, one being zero copyright, and the other being legislation wherein making digital copies of purchased art is illegal, which one is more damaging? In one, the profitability of art is decimated. In the other, the consumer simply has to purchase art in their favoured medium.

Really? You don't think the art on a CD is the same as the art on an exact MP3 copy?

You have to be purposefully stupid not to recognize my point.

so in your logic if you pay to see a movie in a movie theatre, you've actually purchased the rights to see it again, as many times as you want, for free?