how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[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.

[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.