how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[golgi body]

Originally Posted by Rye

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.

You're not fucking over the big cats by stealing/pirating (maybe a little). You're hurting the ones on the bottom of the totem pole, the recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, producers, session players, and artists. These people don't make a killing to begin with, and when the album/product they help produce is no longer profitable, their income drops as well. Rye, you're a hardcore and punk fan right? I hope none of those 22,332 songs are from independent artists and labels, because you're fucking these people over 10x worse than RIAA artists.

You're also wrong about digital recording and the drop in production costs. You're still buying 'studio time' when you record and that's not likely to drop just because the tools have improved. Sure amateurs can cut pretty nice sounding records on a home built DAW nowadays (much better than those shitty ADAT machines, which were digital too), but most professional bands (artists that produce music for a living), and not just top 40 artists, still record in professional studios. These studios still cost millions of dollars. Just head over to Gearslutz.com and check out the 'High End' section. You'll be surprised at the costs involved into putting together a pro-level studio. Gear alone will easily put you over a couple $100k, then factor in room designs, acoustic treatment, and operating costs. Multi-million dollar studios haven't disappeared. Neither have the costs of marketing and promoting an album.

Originally Posted by hercircus

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.

Do you make a living off of your music? If not, then your singing in a band is just a hobby. Perhaps one day you'll 'make it', which I take to mean writing and producing music becomes your sole source of income. When that happens I bet you'll be pissed when your livelihood, and not million dollar homes and cars, but actual ability to pay rent on a month to month basis, rests in the hands of people who think they're on a crusade to take down 'big evil corporations'. This will be at your expense, and should you decide to remain independent, then let's really hope you have a lot of generous fans and not ones who assume you're making "way too much money".

[hercircus]

Originally Posted by golgi body

Do you make a living off of your music? If not, then your singing in a band is just a hobby. Perhaps one day you'll 'make it', which I take to mean writing and producing music becomes your sole source of income. When that happens I bet you'll be pissed when your livelihood, and not million dollar homes and cars, but actual ability to pay rent on a month to month basis, rests in the hands of people who think they're on a crusade to take down 'big evil corporations'. This will be at your expense, and should you decide to remain independent, then let's really hope you have a lot of generous fans and not ones who assume you're making "way too much money".

No I am not a rock star obviously, but what I'm getting at is that musicians make a lot more money than just from their album sales. The point I was trying to make is that music is a form of art and if your a real artist then you will suck it up and take what you get. There are thousands of big bands out there that have their music stolen every day and they still live in their big mansions and drive their fancy cars because they make up for all that money by playing concerts and selling merchandise. Back in the 80s and 90s no one really had computer access to download music so they were forced to buy albums, however concerts and merchandise were also a hell of a lot cheaper. So to make my point I don't really see how it is effecting them. As far as I'm concerned, the bands that are making such big deals about this are just greedy.

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to pirate music, I'm just saying that it's wrong for different reasons, from a consumer's standpoint in it being unfair to other consumers who are paying for music.

A real artist would be happy that their music was getting out there and that people actually want to listen to them.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Rye

my brother works in probly the top studio in LA right now been in the bussiness many a years, i know all about the costs of production and shite, digital age reduced costs greatly, both in equipment cost and time. no longer does it cost millions to outfit a studio, you say 200k? thats chump change compared to cash that was spent in the past.

Also if you read my other post i said we are fukin the company but inturn they are just passing the fuking down the line instead of trimming the fat. Pay? Fuck the amount of cash that is thrown around in the music industry is fukin ridiculous. The stories of wasted cash are unbelievable.

as far as indpendant bands I listen to I support my bands by going to their shows and buying their merch.

hey dont get me wrong I totally get the its illegal to download etc etc and the rights of the artists but music industry has been fukin the public for too long. Between overpriced records, ridiculously fukin outrages prices for shows etc... shit needs to change.

See, you fucking agree with us.

Stealing music, by downloading MP3s with no intention of purchasing them, hurts the RIAA.

Why?

BECAUSE IT HURTS THE FUCKING ARTIST.

Once the RIAA is dead and gone, sharing MP3s (with no intention...) will ONLY hurt the artist.

I've already told you the most effective way to bring down the RIAA.

STOP LISTENING TO RIAA-BACKED MUSIC.

You'll fucking decimate them.

You dumb fucks are just too chicken shit to do what's needed.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by hercircus

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to pirate music, I'm just saying that it's wrong for different reasons, from a consumer's standpoint in it being unfair to other consumers who are paying for music.

A real artist would be happy that their music was getting out there and that people actually want to listen to them.

Copyright applies to all art, not just music. Far fewer people will be able to spend years of their lives writing novels if everybody stole their shit and told them they should be happy anybody read it. No one would sink millions of dollars into movies. What, Peter Jackson? You want to make a faithful cinematic recreation of a beloved book series? Good luck getting anyone to pay for it.

[dzagama]

Pat Dixon's a shit-dick for trying to sell his material on iTunes.

Can someone start seeding it on TPB?

TIA!

[Cretaceous Bob]

I like Keith's attitude towards killing pirates.

I will now go purchase a frigate, hire a crew, and sail north to teach yoav and greggcarson a lesson.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

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.

i never said that? in fact i've said many times that you profiting from someone else's work requires the copyrights, that's been a fundamental point in my argument? how can you say that i'd advocate such a thing out of nowhere and then argue against that fictional point?

browneyedbitche's last point was based on lack of understanding of the current law, i wasn't dodging anything, i gave her material so she could understand, her stance was a misinformed one.

for the last couple pages i've been trying to help you finally express your point of view, which you really need to do because you started out yelling 'thief thief' and we all thought you were saying 'thief' based on copyright law and the system. you were very anti-theft and anti-changing the system.
at around page 19 you finally clarified that you were going 'thief thief' based on your own ideals and morals because based on the current law you are too a thief.

what i don't understand, and i assume it's because you've been evolving your point throughout this which is fine, but when i said that the concept of stealing is defined by the state, you said i was an idiot? however now you say that you would like to change the state's concept of being a thief not to include making digital copies for your own personal use.

so now we're in the process of understanding your point of view for what you think is right and what should be implemented in the future. as far as i've seen the people who say my point of view is fundamentally morraly wrong are people that admit they haven't read the thread and don't understand my point, or don't understand the current copyright laws and the main argument against my model is that i'm a thief which by today's us law i am and is missing the point entirely. and also you making shit up and not understanding my model and then scolding me for what you think i believe and not what i've said even when the stuff you invent me saying completely contradict my point. a lot of this thread you've been arguing against yourself.

what i want is to understand your concecpt of 'owning art' as another possible way to move into the future, as you've explained it so far i see a flaw that you're not addressing.

don't just say i'm wrong and move onto attacking me, explain why you're right. can you take a break for a little while and just explain your concept of 'owning the art'. and start by directly answering these questions in as short and clear manner as possible.

if you own the art, why does paying for the rights to watch a movie in a movie theatre not give you the rights to the art?

under your model can you take a video camera into a movie theatre if you're only using the copy for your own personal use?

what are the limits of owning art? if i purchase a cd, can i play it for my friends where 2 of the 3 present do not own a copy of the art being played? what gives them the right to the art?

what if one of my friends listening pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy using the microphone to record the song at better than cd quality, which he then uses for his own personal use? is he breaking the law? am i breaking the law?

under your model is playing the same cd, in my driveway while i sit on my porch breaking the law?

what if 5 of my neighbours gather and listen to it without them owning the art being played?

what if 20 gather and i don't even know some of them?

what if someone pulls out their cell phone and makes an exact copy for their own personal use? did that person steal? did that person steal from me or the artist?

[dzagama]

yay, yoav! Finally this is getting somewhere, you've made some good points.

Stable systems have negative feedback loops. In social systems, I believe the stasis reached is called a compromise, and I finally feel like we're getting to one.

I'll leave it to Bob to do a line-by-line analysis, but I think most of the vitriol for your position was due to statements like:

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.

Stuff like that, while metaphysically true, imply that you don't believe in copyrights. I suppose Bob and I fear the consequences of that sort of deconstructionism. While it is the absolute truth, it fucks up Capitalistic systems.

(And if you're a good student, no legitimate university will kick you out without giving you a fair chance to prove the originality of your work.)

The current anti-consumerist laws are purely caused by business protecting its interest, which it felt was eroded by people eschewing the purchase of music, to simply 'borrowing' a copy online.

ie. FILE SHARING CAME FIRST, NOT THE DMCA.

Both of us are idealistic.

In your view, by sharing digital content, artist exposure would increase, resulting in a net benefit to the artist.

In my view, if we all agree that inappropriately licensed digital content should not be shared, all draconian laws would be lifted.

I truly believe the industry is overreacting purely because people download CDs and DVDs with ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of purchasing them.

They are satisfied with the downloaded copy.

It provides them with all the satisfaction that a purchased copy would provide.

You and I are probably not those individuals, but by rah-rah'ing file sharing, little children will feel better about decimating a potential market.

The idea of ownership of art by the consumer is only viable if the consumer does not share said art widely.

How do you define 'widely'?

How do you pick an age of consent?

Compromise.

[dzagama]

While we're posting examples, here's one that I deleted.

- What if j2x is asked to create a blueprint of a house for a customer.

- He spends 20 hours and charges the customer $100 for the blueprints.

- Satisfied customer uses prints to build house and emails a copy to a friend also interested in constructing a house.

- Interested friend, also satisfied with the blueprints, forgoes j2x's services, and builds house using emailed copy of blueprints.

--

Should j2x have any recourse, or should the laws be purely on the consumer's side?

------------------------------------------

Under your position, is software like Pirates of the Amazon morally acceptable?

(It places a one-click torrent button right under the Purchase button on Amazon pages for CDs and DVDs)

Will all people who download the torrent, come back and Purchase a slightly different MP3 from Amazon after 'sampling' the content?

[yoav]

Originally Posted by dzagama

While we're posting examples, here's one that I deleted.

- What if j2x is asked to create a blueprint of a house for a customer.

- He spends 20 hours and charges the customer $100 for the blueprints.

- Satisfied customer uses prints to build house and emails a copy to a friend also interested in constructing a house.

- Interested friend, also satisfied with the blueprints, forgoes j2x's services, and builds house using emailed copy of blueprints.

--

Should j2x have any recourse, or should the laws be purely on the consumer's side?

------------------------------------------

Under your position, is software like Pirates of the Amazon morally acceptable?

(It places a one-click torrent button right under the Purchase button on Amazon pages for CDs and DVDs)

Will all people download the torrent, then come back and Purchase a slightly different MP3 from Amazon after 'sampling' the content?

what's with your avatar? i thought you were obama.... very confused.

my model is based on artist's intent. so j2x would sign a contract before beginning work. if the builder he gives the blueprint to violates the contract, they are liable for breaking said contract. If he has a 9-5 job drawing up blueprints for a firm then the firm owns the content he produces and it's their responsibility and content to protect.

if he sends his work over to china, he knows it will be used without compensation and he accepts the risk of releasing his content in that way.

pirates of the amazon is really innovative, but in my model it has no increased/decreased moral value. it's simply a means of organizing information differently, the same torrents are available with or without it. it's really just slightly easier than having two tabs open, one with amazon and one with the pirate bay.

the question of satisfaction is a weird one, i know people that could listen to a song off a tin radio and not be able to tell the difference between the same song on a $300,000 sound system, and other people who are only satisfied with vinyl. the vast majority are satisfied with mp3's which sound like shit to me.

an mp3 is not in ANY way close to the quality of the master recording and the experience of listening to one is not in any way comparable to being at a live performance no matter how sophisticated your stereo is. just as a print of georges seurat's - a sunday afternoon on the island of la grande jatte is not in any way comparable to standing in front of the original.

i don't think capitalism is conducive to art, i think it hurts it. some of the best art was produced at a time when it was commissioned.
shakespear
mozart
van gogh
etc etc.

or when done for the love of art like
banksy
YouTube - banksy

in my opinion an artist selling copies of their work is pathetic. and as it pertains to music if you're satisfied just listening to the music you don't care about the art.

art is about conveying an abstract notion, you should understand what the artist is about and the subtleties of what they're saying through their art.

that understanding and connection has an impact on the listener who then wants to support the artist. i think capitalism and greed of record labels has skewed and dictated the use of technology, and i think now that it's free for artists to distribute their work record labels are merely one road to distribution, and the artist has to make a choice:

• do i release the mp3 of my song on the radio, they'll pay me but people will make copies and distribute it on and off the web
• do i release the wav of my song on cd, or the mp3 through itunes/amazon, i'll make a bunch of money but people will make copies and distribute it on and off the web.
• do i release my music online for free and ask people to decide on the price which the reality is, people do anyway, except now when the consumer decides it's worth $0.99 the artist actually gets that 99c, and people will still make copies and distribute it on and off the web.
• do i sign up with a record label who will take my copyrights and most of my royalties for the price of covering the cost of distribution and advertising.

the law should ideally protect the rights of people. people cannot retain rights over the intangible, there should be no copyright laws. when you want to protect the intangible you must create a contract that clearly stipulates and outlines the intangible entity being protected and both parties must agree and honour that contract.

this is the world as i see it, organizations like the riaa are having a knee jerk reaction and attempting to override the rights of people in an attempt to maintain their control and continue to exploit something as fragile as art, and something as stoned as the artist.
this fear campaign is part of that knee jerk reaction to the currently legal and illegal emerging use of technology that threatens cutting out their middle-man-ness and rendering them obsolete. ie: itunes, amazon, pandora, itunes genius, torrents, websites, social media.

the purpose of this thread was to post your itunes collection as a way of telling that maniacal organization to fuck off. to make a farce of their litigation tactics. they just lost a case where they sued someone for illegal downloading and the defence didn't even own a computer at the time of the aligations.

the amount i 'owe' the riaa was calculated including podcasts, my own recordings, scott sigler style audiobooks, sxsw, cc licenced material, etc. as well because those are all dollars that would have 10 years ago gone to record labels, and publishing companies. which i think is just as big a fuck you as the digital copies of music i have that would have been illegal to download in the states. where the riaa defines copyright law via lobbying great sums of money in everyone's direction earned by sueing old ladies who settle out of court out of fear.

if we're all against the riaa, why aren't more people posting their fuck you to the riaa.