how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[Rye]

I love the point your makin about concert tickets......


fuk me thats a whole other ball of bullshit. The cost of going to a legit show (ie a concert not a bar) is friggin ridiculous. and the prices went up far before this filesharing thing was an issue.

another example of the " fuk it we can charge what we want theyll pay" attitude of music industry

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

No, because what you do when you purchase a movie ticket is rent a seat in the theater for a certain block of time, where a particular film will be shown. I think you know this but you want to keep arguing.

Yoav, I don't think you will understand this until the day the shoe is on the other foot. You still think that because it's being done by so many people all over the world, that it must be okay, that we no longer have value to our products because there's so many of them out there. Bob is completely right in every point he has made. I don't know if it's boredom or blinders that keep you from seeing that and continuing this argument.

If digital copies had no value, the woman in the article would never have been convicted and fined. The Napster guy would not have been sued. Kids all over the country would not be getting C&D letters. If there was no value to the art, the entire industry would shut down because there would be no value to anything they put out, except for the cost of the disc.

I can make a copy of any music I purchase. I can put the copy of the song on my ipod, transfer the same copy to my portable hard drive, even burn the copy of the song to a physical CD. This way when one storage device is no longer functioning, I still protect my purchase and retain my product. The moment I give you the disc, or the hard drive, or my ipod, I am now the pirate, and you the thief, because my purchase did not give me the right to distribute to anyone else, and you did not purchase the item at all. Just because I gave it to you does not mean it was okay for you to take it. I know it goes on all over the place, but that does not make it okay. The end.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by hercircus

As a musician myself I support other artists and buy my music either cds or from itunes, HOWEVER, as a musician I could care fucking less if someone was stealing my music, in fact I would just be happy that people wanted to hear my music. Musicians are really greedy and already make way too much money, and that was never supposed to be the purpose of being a musician. Musicians are "artists" and artists do what they do because they love it, not for the money, unless they are sell outs. Not to say that anyone's complaining about making millions to do something they love to do, but then really it just becomes a matter of greed. These days because artists aren't making as much money off of album sales, they make up for it with concert prices and merchandise sales. Concert tickets these days, depending on the band, are going anywhere from $30-$800 a pop and merchandise is always overly expensive. It is outrageous and far more than you would ever spend on a cd right? so I wouldn't worry about the bands financial situations, they have far more money than any of us do so really what do they have to complain about?

HOWEVER, from a listeners standpoint I understand that it isn't fair that some of us do pay for music while others get it for free because they're stealing it, and I think that is the biggest point about pirating anything and as to why I do pay for my music. In conclusion I believe it's more unfair to the others who are buying their music as opposed to being unfair to the musicians themselves.

I appreciate how you as an artist are indifferent to music theft, but that does not mean the system as a whole is flawed because you (or other artists) don't care either way. I've said it here before: the system that is in place may be out of touch with the rapidly advancing digital era, but the answer to how to change the system does not lie in stealing or illegally distributing music just because it is more convenient. Legislation is in place for ways to change the system. Such a process is lengthy, but it is there for a reason. Clearly the industry is using the legislative options by going after the people who violate the rights to the product they own.

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

I think we can all agree that having a CD, and making a copy, and putting it on every possible device you can listen to it on, is not, in the spirit of the law, illegal. Nor should it be in the letter of the law. But this discussion was never about making a personal copy for yourself... At least I don't think so.

I'd go so far as to say sharing music with friends, playing it at an open mic, putting up Youtube videos of your band, giving online lessons on playing a song, or playing Guitar Hero, all shouldn't be illegal. I also don't think any artists is seriously bothered by any of these things (except maybe Metallica).

"Sharing" over P2P is definitely not the same as giving 2 people a CD to copy. Sorry. I'm somewhere between Bob and Yoav in all this, but the point about those 2 things being equal isn't right, even to me.

I don't think the music has anywhere close to the worth the RIAA puts on it, and for the most part I think if they make it, it should be "out there". I don't think it's fair to pay for a song that has any restriction on what I do with it. I also don't think I should pay for some song I want to use once to splice into a clip of a funny home movie. I don't like to be micro managed.
Also, as I said, if you make it hard for me to get your music in any small way, I'm going the free and easy route. That's your fault for not adapting to the market's desires.

This is quite the gray area, I understand. Saying someone should make something and it should be given away all the time is stupid, no matter the format. Unless as mentioned, there was no money, or they didn't depend on that money to eat. Then, yes, all things should be free in an ideal world.

I also think it's unreasonable to say that if you make something for the public because it's supposedly what you love, that you get to decide, for every little thing, what and when to charge people in the end. It's usually not even the creators deciding. Many would much rather you go to their shows and/or pay much less for the music.

The market does decide, even if the market is made up of "thieves". Because of technology, if someone doesn't want to pay for something, they can easily choose not to. I don't know what the answer to this is. I don't think it should spur a bunch of silly laws, and I don't think it's entirely right in all circumstances, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

The industry needs to find a way to give people what they want, the way they want it or they will keep losing. If they had done that in the first place, we probably wouldn't be in this situation.

[Rye]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I appreciate how you as an artist are indifferent to music theft, but that does not mean the system as a whole is flawed because you (or other artists) don't care either way. I've said it here before: the system that is in place may be out of touch with the rapidly advancing digital era, but the answer to how to change the system does not lie in stealing or illegally distributing music just because it is more convenient. Legislation is in place for ways to change the system. Such a process is lengthy, but it is there for a reason. Clearly the industry is using the legislative options by going after the people who violate the rights to the product they own.

bs, its exactly they way to shake shit up. when digital recording came out they were like fukin right costs are way down we dont need to spend a 10th of the money producing a record now we are gonna make so much more cash... not ahh it costs us less were gonna drop the prices or pay or artists more.
Now its gone and bit them in the ass.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

No, because what you do when you purchase a movie ticket is rent a seat in the theater for a certain block of time, where a particular film will be shown. I think you know this but you want to keep arguing.

Yoav, I don't think you will understand this until the day the shoe is on the other foot. You still think that because it's being done by so many people all over the world, that it must be okay, that we no longer have value to our products because there's so many of them out there. Bob is completely right in every point he has made. I don't know if it's boredom or blinders that keep you from seeing that and continuing this argument.

If digital copies had no value, the woman in the article would never have been convicted and fined. The Napster guy would not have been sued. Kids all over the country would not be getting C&D letters. If there was no value to the art, the entire industry would shut down because there would be no value to anything they put out, except for the cost of the disc.

I can make a copy of any music I purchase. I can put the copy of the song on my ipod, transfer the same copy to my portable hard drive, even burn the copy of the song to a physical CD. This way when one storage device is no longer functioning, I still protect my purchase and retain my product. The moment I give you the disc, or the hard drive, or my ipod, I am now the pirate, and you the thief, because my purchase did not give me the right to distribute to anyone else, and you did not purchase the item at all. Just because I gave it to you does not mean it was okay for you to take it. I know it goes on all over the place, but that does not make it okay. The end.

yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.

you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.

i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.

bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.

i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.

you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.

i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.

bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.

i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.

you continue to misunderstand. When you go to see a movie, you are taking in the visceral experience of the art, not just occupying a seat. You are not just paying for velvet and air conditioning. You are not paying to look at the film canister with the studio's label. You are watching a movie - ART.

and again, the legality of making a copy of music, film, painting, etc. lies in the DISTRIBUTION, not the copying. My copy for my personal gain is acceptable and legal. It's the same as photocopying important documents, papers for my classes, family photos, etc.

I just think you are so hung up on the knowledge that not having this ease of obtaining materials is so detrimental to your comfort, that you are swimming upstream to fight it. It really is so simple.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

and again, the legality of making a copy of music, film, painting, etc. lies in the DISTRIBUTION, not the copying. My copy for my personal gain is acceptable and legal. It's the same as photocopying important documents, papers for my classes, family photos, etc.

this is not true at all. please read the following
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
or at least the dmca itself
or the quote from the riaa website concerning the allowance of one backup and no other copies that i already posted in this thread.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

That doesn't even come close to being analogous.

I'm saying if you own a DVD, you have the right to see what is on that DVD as many times as you want.

Originally Posted by hercircus

HOWEVER, as a musician I could care fucking less if someone was stealing my music, in fact I would just be happy that people wanted to hear my music.

But that's your choice. It's a good thing too, because even if that wasn't your preference yoav would steal it anyway. Fuck you, he says.

Originally Posted by yoav

yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.

you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.

i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.

bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.

i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.

Yoav, you have ignored everything I have said and blathered the same nonsense you've been talking this entire time, steadfastly refusing to address any of my points.

You are a sad, disgusting, despicable person, who will contort his thinking into any way necessary to justify theft.

You have admitted that there is ownership of art. You had to admit it to not make yourself look like a giant fucking asshole by saying I can profit off of KATG.

It doesn't matter what you believe other than that; by believing there is ownership of art, it is possible to steal art.

You want to destroy all of artists' rights, just because the consumer was slightly inconvenienced. And yet you're not anti-art.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

this is not true at all. please read the following
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
or at least the dmca itself
or the quote from the riaa website concerning the allowance of one backup and no other copies that i already posted in this thread.

Then the point remains that how browneyedbitch says it should be law, even if it isn't.

You have dodged all of the proposed changes to law, because they amend your complaints without granting you the ability to steal. Naturally, that is no good. You must steal. So you must make it an issue of RIAA or pirating, NOTHING ELSE.