how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[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.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

This part was already explained. You watching a film in a theater does not give you license to take and redistribute the film. The theater has rented the film from the studio with the agreement that they will only show it in that venue, for certain periods. If they don't follow their contracts with the studios, they lose their rights to show those films and get sued big time for breach of contract.

If you want a better idea of this, when films first came out, filmhouse managers would edit films as they wanted to by cutting out of the filmstrips parts of the movies they personally deemed inappropriate. When the first film censorship boards came up, they put together legislation that caused that to happen. Such laws went into place also preventing filmhouse managers from further editing films because they personally didn't like the content. If such laws were not in place, the same editing would be happening today. That would be a patron of the theater having the rights to the art.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

You already know the answer to that, but you are dodging it. You didn't buy the film yourself, you rented the seat in the theater.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

Now you're being absurd. There are expectations that the purchase of an individual CD is being done so for the personal use of the purchaser. Such personal use includes home entertainment where more than one person is listening to it. If your friends are copying the songs onto their cell phones, then they are the bastard thieves, not you. You are within your rights to use the art you purchased. There is a difference between playing something for yourself and uploading for everyone to take. If I pay for a movie on demand, and you are watching it with me, neither one of us are breaking the law because the art was paid for and consumed in the home - what it was meant for. If you are standing in my window with a camcorder and recording the movie to be uploaded, then you are the thief.

Yoav, you have made some interesting points, but the fact that you don't see this is beyond bizarre to me.

[Nebraskacountrygirl]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

Yoav, you have made some interesting points, but the fact that you don't see this is beyond bizarre to me.

He sees what you are saying. The problem is that Yoav thinks he's right and won't even give an inch into what the rest of you are saying. It's ridiculous to have this many pages explaining something illegal in the United States and not Canada. THEY will never see it (They being Yoav and j2x) your way.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

Do you pay attention to the FBI warnings at the beginning of DVD's? (Probably not - you're Canadian.) It does say the sale and performance of this material is limited to personal use in the home only - and any other performance or distribution of this very disc is unlawful. That is the contract you enter into with the government when you purchase your film. When you copy it and give it to your friends, you have violated your contract. It is the same thing.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by Nebraskacountrygirl

He sees what you are saying. The problem is that Yoav thinks he's right and won't even give an inch into what the rest of you are saying. It's ridiculous to have this many pages explaining something illegal in the United States and not Canada. THEY will never see it (They being Yoav and j2x) your way.

I think it's beyond the legalities and it's now the ethics that I don't think he sees. I can see how the laws in Canada differ, but to have such a fundamental difference in how material is perceived as art and is given such value is odd to me.

[Nebraskacountrygirl]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I think it's beyond the legalities and it's now the ethics that I don't think he sees. I can see how the laws in Canada differ, but to have such a fundamental difference in how material is perceived as art and is given such value is odd to me.

I'll agree to that as well.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I think it's beyond the legalities and it's now the ethics that I don't think he sees. I can see how the laws in Canada differ, but to have such a fundamental difference in how material is perceived as art and is given such value is odd to me.

there's a lot of crazy shit out there.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Yoav, you already admitted copyright exists.

Originally Posted by yoav

i believe the above statements do not describe theft, i believe it's possible to take the above statements to be theft if you were to profit off said duplication, or if you intend to thwart the intent of the artist.

You state that it is theft to profit off of the duplication of art. Thus, it is wrong to profit off of someone else's work. SOMEONE. ELSE'S. WORK.

It cannot be wrong to profit off of someone else's work without ownership of art. If ownership of art exists, taking owned art without consent is theft. You can't agree to it or not agree to it; it is a byproduct of copyright existing.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

First of all, you're a complete fucking idiot if you assume people who have a problem with your actions are just doing so not because they personally have a problem with it, but because someone else has legislated that it is wrong.

Secondly, don't fucking dare try to pretend that I have been anything but exceedingly clear on my points. I quote EVERY SINGLE point you make and address ALL OF THEM.

You spent 19 pages yelling about the RIAA, and it was only after I reiterated myself a thousand fucking times that you finally gave that up and realized I am not arguing for the RIAA. You're only recognizing that I am saying what I am saying because it's finally become apparent to you that you cannot continue to try to associate me with the RIAA.

I am anti-change. Anti- the change you think is necessary. You are arguing for a change in how art is treated as a whole. Just because there are a few issues wrong with copyright protection legislation in the US doesn't mean I'm pro-overhauling the system; I'm not. That's been fucking clear from the beginning, but you need things repeated.

Originally Posted by yoav

what i don't understand, and i assume it's because you've been evolving your point throughout this which is fine,

Wrong, dickface. I've been hammering the exact same point into your pathetic skull this entire time.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

You tried to argue that thievery doesn't exist, and is purely a product of the state.

There are very clear circumstances where something is stealing. Like when I steal your TV. Or steal someone else's artistic product.

I have already told you why ripping a purchased CD to my hard drive is not stealing, and you have not cared to dispute it.

As I have already said, tell me how the fuck that's stealing and I will address it.

Otherwise, stop grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

I like how you just blabber with this shit and never quote A SINGLE FUCKING THING.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE INVENTED YOU SAYING SOMETHING.

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR MODEL.

IF YOU DO NOT SHOW ME ANYTHING, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A LYING BITCH.

Quote me on anything, and I will show you what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

You pay for the right to view art once. What happens when the movie is over, you fucking idiot? You have to pay for another ticket if you want to see it again.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

Obviously not, as is clear from what I stated above.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

Sure, you can play it for your friends.

Don't even fucking dare try to pretend that playing music for a couple friends = giving them all free copies of the music.

Originally Posted by yoav

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?

Who cares? This minute shit isn't the point. Are you really going to argue for the dissolution of copyright just because you can't record music with your fucking phone?

Really?

Originally Posted by yoav

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

You're reduced to this?

Why is it that you've decided the SLIGHTEST INCONVENIENCE to the listener is worth the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of artists' rights?

That's clearly what you're searching for.

Originally Posted by yoav

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

They're not retaining copies of the music, are they?

Originally Posted by yoav

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

The number of them who have copies of the music is still 0.

And as far as your rambling about capitalism and whatnot goes, it's entirely irrelevant. The economic system does not change the fact that an artist has a right to own his art, in whatever economic system he lives in. Interesting how you rip on capitalism after using it for a defense of your thievery; fickle friends, no? I guess once it can no longer act as a justification for thievery it is worth nothing to you.

By the way, I like how you try to rally back to the original point about the RIAA. And I reiterate: I have far less of a problem with an organization that fucks thieves over than a person who steals from artists. I have no desire to stick it to The Man; I want to help The Man kick your teeth in.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Yoav, you already admitted copyright exists.

You state that it is theft to profit off of the duplication of art. Thus, it is wrong to profit off of someone else's work. SOMEONE. ELSE'S. WORK.

It cannot be wrong to profit off of someone else's work without ownership of art. If ownership of art exists, taking owned art without consent is theft. You can't agree to it or not agree to it; it is a byproduct of copyright existing.

no one can deny copyright exists, i never did, it's a law.(misquote count = 1)

it is only wrong to profit off someone else's work if the artist's intent is that you do not. my point of view has nothing to do with ownership of art or copyright, it is has to do with the artist's intent. i wrote a couple of big, perhaps confusing for you, paragraphs on this earlier in the thread, the only possible way for you to so drastically misquote me is for it to have gone wayyy over your head(misquote count = 2)

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

First of all, you're a complete fucking idiot if you assume people who have a problem with your actions are just doing so not because they personally have a problem with it, but because someone else has legislated that it is wrong.

what people are you talking about? what is this relating to?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Secondly, don't fucking dare try to pretend that I have been anything but exceedingly clear on my points. I quote EVERY SINGLE point you make and address ALL OF THEM.

you haven't been clear at all, you can't be anti-theft and pro-theft, making a digital copy is currently theft. so you're advocating theft is ok.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You spent 19 pages yelling about the RIAA, and it was only after I reiterated myself a thousand fucking times that you finally gave that up and realized I am not arguing for the RIAA. You're only recognizing that I am saying what I am saying because it's finally become apparent to you that you cannot continue to try to associate me with the RIAA.

i thought you were pro riaa for so long because you kept saying you agree with the outcome of the case. i'm still a bit flabergasted by that. but you're entitled to your opinion. it's good that you clarified that you're only pro riaa when they're suing thieves.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I am anti-change. Anti- the change you think is necessary. You are arguing for a change in how art is treated as a whole. Just because there are a few issues wrong with copyright protection legislation in the US doesn't mean I'm pro-overhauling the system; I'm not. That's been fucking clear from the beginning, but you need things repeated.

i never said anything i said was necessary(misquote count = 3) i said it's one possible model for the future. it's also a sound model as it worked for centuries and produced some of the greatest artworks in existance.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Wrong, dickface. I've been hammering the exact same point into your pathetic skull this entire time.

You tried to argue that thievery doesn't exist, and is purely a product of the state.

There are very clear circumstances where something is stealing. Like when I steal your TV. Or steal someone else's artistic product.

theft is purely of the state. in a communist state, taking someones tv would really be taking everyone's tv, if you're part of that everyone then it's not theft.

all the laws about theft and ownership are not your ideas but the state's. every last one, if you think there's some fundamental right to own things than you're wrong. you clearly can't climb out of the box that is your countries rampant corruption.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I have already told you why ripping a purchased CD to my hard drive is not stealing, and you have not cared to dispute it.

As I have already said, tell me how the fuck that's stealing and I will address it.

Otherwise, stop grasping at straws.

it is stealing, and theft, because the state you live in considers it so, and if caught and prosecuted you would be convicted.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I like how you just blabber with this shit and never quote A SINGLE FUCKING THING.

sometimes you write a whole shit ton, and copying and quoting every line is silly because you'd been basing your whole rant off a misquote of what i said.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE INVENTED YOU SAYING SOMETHING.

refer to the misquote count above, it's common in your replies to me.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR MODEL.

refer to the misquote count above, it's also common in your replies to me

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

IF YOU DO NOT SHOW ME ANYTHING, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A LYING BITCH.

i believe the above miscount quote is a clear enough sample, if you'd like me to do it to a bunch of your other replies then fine, i'm not doing the whole thread just to show you you've been doing it the whole thread.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Quote me on anything, and I will show you what I was talking about.

please do, and please actually answer the questions dzgama and i would like you to answer instead of dodging them.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You pay for the right to view art once. What happens when the movie is over, you fucking idiot? You have to pay for another ticket if you want to see it again.

so, just to clarify you're saying that in your model, you're renting the art, or are you saying that you're purchasing one movie theatre experience. you're dodging the question here.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Obviously not, as is clear from what I stated above.

Sure, you can play it for your friends.

please explain properly how your concept of owning art, correlates with playing it for friends if they don't own the art

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Don't even fucking dare try to pretend that playing music for a couple friends = giving them all free copies of the music.

Who cares? This minute shit isn't the point. Are you really going to argue for the dissolution of copyright just because you can't record music with your fucking phone?

the above two statements contradict each other, scale is an irrelevant factor, law defines right and wrong in a society just because there isn't a lot of rape doesn't mean it's ok or legal.

what if that cell phone is connected to the internet and instead of recording the friend streams the music to 3 million listeners, no profit is being made anywhere. is that ok under your model?

what if a bunch of those listeners make recordings for themselves and some others stream it to 5 million more listeners?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Really?

You're reduced to this?

this is dodging the question again, these are things the current copyright law accounts for, i'm not reduced to anything but pointing out the holes in your model, and what you have not explained in the change you want to create in the system, please answer the question.

if i play a cd i purchase on my porch or in a public space is that legal under your model?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Why is it that you've decided the SLIGHTEST INCONVENIENCE to the listener is worth the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of artists' rights?

That's clearly what you're searching for.

(misquote misextrapolation put words in my mouth count = 4)

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

They're not retaining copies of the music, are they?

The number of them who have copies of the music is still 0.

you never answered the last few questions

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?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

And as far as your rambling about capitalism and whatnot goes, it's entirely irrelevant. The economic system does not change the fact that an artist has a right to own his art, in whatever economic system he lives in. Interesting how you rip on capitalism after using it for a defense of your thievery; fickle friends, no? I guess once it can no longer act as a justification for thievery it is worth nothing to you.

a) this is rambling, you're not quoting direct lines here, you're doing exactly what you scolded me for doing in the same post..
b) you're completely wrong and need to read about different styles of government and economics.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

By the way, I like how you try to rally back to the original point about the RIAA. And I reiterate: I have far less of a problem with an organization that fucks thieves over than a person who steals from artists. I have no desire to stick it to The Man; I want to help The Man kick your teeth in.

again no direct quotes, you're just rambling here. maybe when it's you who get's sued $2 million for ripping a cd to your ipod you will want to stick it to the man. maybe then you'll be able to grasp what i'm saying instead of misquoting me and then responding to the misquotes.

i think it's weird that we both want change, but you don't seem to do anything to bring about that change. i think it's fucked up that you're pro a small amount of change but so utterly blindly and aggressively against anyone that wants a different amount of change than you. you must be a god in your world view, which oddly enough is a juvenile one.