how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[dzagama]

I'll address yoav's finer points when I've got a chunk of time.

I don't think this will go anywhere until then.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

I am quoting this for irony. I cannot find any evidence that ripping a CD to an iPod is illegal in the US (despite yoav's REPEATED claims that it is so). In fact, here is a statement from a representative for MGM Studios in a Supreme Court case against a file-sharing client: "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward."

I cannot even find an example of the RIAA suing anyone over ripping a CD.

Looks like you need a little background before you argue something you know little about, yoav.

Also, I will provide evidence for the claims I have made about yoav inadvertently admitting that he believes in ownership of art:

Straight from yoav's mouth.

Are you wrong, yoav?

first of all thanks for finally answering my questions.
i merely mentioned that dzagama also wanted you to answer the questions, i'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify his position on the issue as a whole.

you keep saying i admit to ownership of art and showing you don't understand what i'm saying. i believe in the artist's intent, i have not said i believe in ownership of art, you quoted a text saying i believe 'theft is taking something someone else owns' that's not the same thing at all. i went on to explain how no one should own art. you should really read the rest of that post. a misquote.

i've also argued that the current system does not deal in 'owning art' it deals in owning the copyrights(the artist/record label), or owning a copy(the consumer).

another complete misquote.

as far as us law making goes, sometimes things are passed into law without it being the outcome of a court case bob.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as Digital Rights Management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate): Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

i suggest you view the 'printer friendly display' as some of the links to subsections don't work. while the dmca itself does not explicitly talk about digital copies relating to cd to ipod copying it makes numerous mentions and states that it does not overpower sections 109 and 117 title 17 of us copyright code. which is summarized below.

the following is from the US Copyright office U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright and Digital Files

Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works. Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

• the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
• you are the legal owner of the copy; and
• any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).
It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

it turns out you're right that i misunderstood the one backup rule, it only pertains to software 'essential to run or activate the computer', not music, movies, ms word, etc. you're not allowed to make any copies of any other media or software in the states. not even for backup purposes, without the explicit consent of the copyright holder.
notice they say 'such as software or any media downloaded and stored on a hard drive' this applies to things you've paid for and own a copy of. it includes cds, records and any storage medium, as well as any means of acquiring said copies.

the only way in the current system that it would be legal to rip a cd to your ipod, is if that right is written on the cd you purchased.

as far as your quote goes, i believe it was taken from a case where MGM lost against kazaa, and you've misinterpreted what they're saying, they're referring to using the ipod as a backup device not as another means of listening to your music without paying for a digital copy to listen to. which as i just pointed out above is not in line with current us law. furthermore the quote you made was merely the closing remarks of MGM and would have no grounds or impact on the law whether they'd won or lost the case. nor can it be considered legal consent to make copies of cds MGM releases.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

first of all thanks for finally answering my questions.
i merely mentioned that dzagama also wanted you to answer the questions, i'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify his position on the issue as a whole.

No, I think he was posting those as open questions because he doesn't want to solely target you.

Originally Posted by yoav

you keep saying i admit to ownership of art and showing you don't understand what i'm saying. i believe in the artist's intent, i have not said i believe in ownership of art, you quoted a text saying i believe 'theft is taking something someone else owns' that's not the same thing at all. i went on to explain how no one should own art. you should really read the rest of that post. a misquote.

You are stunningly dense.

A: THEFT REQUIRES OWNERSHIP

B: PROFITING OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE'S ART IS THEFT

So that begs the question: what is owned when I profit off of KATG episodes rebranded as my own?

If nothing is, it is not theft, according to you. But you said it is theft, so something must be owned. WHAT?!

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as us law making goes, sometimes things are passed into law without it being the outcome of a court case bob.

link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate): Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

i suggest you view the 'printer friendly display' as some of the links to subsections don't work. while the dmca itself does not explicitly talk about digital copies relating to cd to ipod copying it makes numerous mentions and states that it does not overpower sections 109 and 117 title 17 of us copyright code. which is summarized below.

This act is entirely irrelevant. It makes circumvention of DRM illegal.

It has absolutely zero bearing AT ALL on ripping a CD to an iPod.

Originally Posted by yoav

the following is from the US Copyright office U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright and Digital Files

it turns out you're right that i misunderstood the one backup rule, it only pertains to software 'essential to run or activate the computer', not music, movies, ms word, etc. you're not allowed to make any copies of any other media or software in the states. not even for backup purposes, without the explicit consent of the copyright holder.
notice they say 'such as software or any media downloaded and stored on a hard drive' this applies to things you've paid for and own a copy of. it includes cds, records and any storage medium, as well as any means of acquiring said copies.

the only way in the current system that it would be legal to rip a cd to your ipod, is if that right is written on the cd you purchased.

No, that says that the privileges granted in Section 117 do not apply to other things. It does not say that other copies are illegal, it only says that Section 117 does not protect them.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING RIPPING A CD.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY EXAMPLE OF ANYONE EVER BEING EVEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING FOR RIPPING A CD.

This is an issue that is not clearly addressed by US law. In the meantime, however, ripping a CD is definitely effectively legal.

Also, you're going to try to argue that the system NEEDS to change because of something that never happens? Are you fucking kidding me?

Originally Posted by yoav

as far as your quote goes, i believe it was taken from a case where MGM lost against kazaa, and you've misinterpreted what they're saying,

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MGM won.

Originally Posted by yoav

they're referring to using the ipod as a backup device not as another means of listening to your music without paying for a digital copy to listen to.

What? There is no reason to assume that. The iPod is a listening device, and when the matter of ripping CDs to an iPod is discussed, it is a given that the copies are being listened to.

You want record companies to be like the RIAA so that you have a case for pirating.

Originally Posted by yoav

which as i just pointed out above is not in line with current us law.

The only thing you have ever quoted that has stated that ripping a CD is illegal is the RIAA, who are not the law.

Originally Posted by yoav

furthermore the quote you made was merely the closing remarks of MGM
and would have no grounds or impact on the law whether they'd won or lost the case. nor can it be considered legal consent to make copies of cds MGM releases.

Of course it can't, you fucking idiot.

I'm pointing out that even record companies disagree with the RIAA's assertion that ripping CDs to an iPod is illegal. Why would they then sue a consumer for ripping a CD when they believe it is legal?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Also, every US law you quoted did not address the subject of copying art for personal use. One addressed DRM, and the other only applied to software and did not criminalize anything unrelated to software.

This law doesn't explicitly apply to digital devices, but it shows an intent to protect copies of art for personal use:

Audio Home Recording Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices." <- (that's quoting Wikipedia; it is an accurate summary)

In a case involving the RIAA, a judge wrote, referring to this act: "In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.""

Edit: Oh yeah, here's a full link to the ruling:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright...0_F3d_1072.htm

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

No, I think he was posting those at open questions because he doesn't want to solely target you.

You are stunningly dense.

A: THEFT REQUIRES OWNERSHIP

B: PROFITING OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE'S ART IS THEFT

So that begs the question: what is owned when I profit off of KATG episodes rebranded as my own?

If nothing is, it is not theft, according to you. But you said it is theft, so something must be owned. WHAT?!

ah perhaps i used the wrong wording and/or poor grammer, it's not theft that i was trying to convey, but the right to profit off someone else's work without their consent. theft is the wrong word here.

that profiting off someone else's work without their consent is wrong and should be illegal in my model as it violates the artist's intent, however it should be noted my model creates a world were nobody profits off other's work because it's only the application or implementation of the work that has value.

in simpler terms, in my model, live performance, original art pieces, etc. have value(and to clarify it's not value in the object it's value in the artist applying their knowledge and talent). digital copies of work do not. you get paid to make art by someone who wants you to create that art. it has nothing to do with owning art. it's a world apart from copyright, owning art, etc. it's a completely different system.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

This act is entirely irrelevant. It makes circumvention of DRM illegal.

It has absolutely zero bearing AT ALL on ripping a CD to an iPod.

No, that says that the privileges granted in Section 117 do not apply to other things. It does not say that other copies are illegal, it only says that Section 117 does not protect them.

i disagree with your interpretation

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING RIPPING A CD.

YOU WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY EXAMPLE OF ANYONE EVER BEING EVEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING FOR RIPPING A CD.

the laws are not explicit, but they are implicit. you likely won't be caught for ripping a cd because how could authorities ever know you did it? that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. and that doing so is considered the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content. and that if the laws are left unaltered and one day the privacy laws or policing technology changes (like when bush took away the right to privacy) it will be easier to find these cases of copyright violation. and whoever stands to benefit will be able to freely convict people based on it.

on the other hand you claim that i'm a thief, a non-us citizen guilty of a us law. how does that work?

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

This is an issue that is not clearly addressed by US law. In the meantime, however, ripping a CD is definitely effectively legal.

that's not true, us copyright law very clearly states you're not allowed to make a copy of copyrighted content to a hard drive, even if you choose not to understand the implications, an ipod is a hard drive, and your itunes folder is stored on another hard drive.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Also, you're going to try to argue that the system NEEDS to change because of something that never happens? Are you fucking kidding me?

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts. it's like you want to misunderstand me. furthermore it's not about changing to some arbitrary scheme, i want shit changed back to the way it was when mozart was around. because that system worked, and produced great art. it's this recent copyright fiasco thought up over fear of the printing press, it's the change that copyright brought that i want annulled and art returned to it's natural organic place in the world.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MGM won.

ah sorry the articles i researched must have been referring to when they won outside the usa, which you're right doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

What? There is no reason to assume that. The iPod is a listening device, and when the matter of ripping CDs to an iPod is discussed, it is a given that the copies are being listened to.

regardless of what you assume from their vague statement, it was a closing argument, a comment, not a law.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You want record companies to be like the RIAA so that you have a case for pirating.
The only thing you have ever quoted that has stated that ripping a CD is illegal is the RIAA, who are not the law.

Of course it can't, you fucking idiot.

I'm pointing out that even record companies disagree with the RIAA's assertion that ripping CDs to an iPod is illegal. Why would they then sue a consumer for ripping a CD when they believe it is legal?

a closing argument is designed to sway a jury, no record company in the usa outside that closing argument have openly advocated the copying or ripping of cds, many have spoken against it, and were even sued at one point for putting drm software that installed onto users' computers when they put a cd in without their consent. you seem to have a problem resolving context.
Labels to dampen CD burning? - CNET News
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
the fact that drm even exists is due to record labels wanting to prevent unauthorized copying of content.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

ah perhaps i used the wrong wording and/or poor grammer, it's not theft that i was trying to convey, but the right to profit off someone else's work without their consent. theft is the wrong word here.

that profiting off someone else's work without their consent is wrong and should be illegal in my model as it violates the artist's intent, however it should be noted my model creates a world were nobody profits off other's work because it's only the application or implementation of the work that has value.

Something cannot be someone's work unless they own it.

If they do not own it, it is not theirs.

Originally Posted by yoav

i disagree with your interpretation

the laws are not explicit, but they are implicit. you likely won't be caught for ripping a cd because how could authorities ever know you did it? that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal. and that doing so is considered the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted content. and that if the laws are left unaltered and one day the privacy laws or policing technology changes (like when bush took away the right to privacy) it will be easier to find these cases of copyright violation. and whoever stands to benefit will be able to freely convict people based on it.

on the other hand you claim that i'm a thief, a non-us citizen guilty of a us law. how does that work?

As I have just shown with the Audio Home Recording Act, it's not illegal.

Originally Posted by yoav

that's not true, us copyright law very clearly states you're not allowed to make a copy of copyrighted content to a hard drive, even if you choose not to understand the implications, an ipod is a hard drive, and your itunes folder is stored on another hard drive.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by yoav

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts. it's like you want to misunderstand me. furthermore it's not about changing to some arbitrary scheme, i want shit changed back to the way it was when mozart was around. because that system worked, and produced great art. it's this recent copyright fiasco thought up over fear of the printing press, it's the change that copyright brought that i want annulled and art returned to it's natural organic place in the world.

You are continuing to pretend that there is a precedent for pirating. There is not.

Originally Posted by yoav

regardless of what you assume from their vague statement, it was a closing argument, a comment, not a law.

I didn't say it was, you delusional moron.

Originally Posted by yoav

a closing argument is designed to sway a jury, no record company in the usa outside that closing argument have openly advocated the copying or ripping of cds, many have spoken against it, and were even sued at one point for putting drm software that installed onto users' computers when they put a cd in without their consent. you seem to have a problem resolving context.
Labels to dampen CD burning? - CNET News
MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal
the fact that drm even exists is due to record labels wanting to prevent unauthorized copying of content.

They want to stop copying because of thieves, not because of personal use. Do not try to confuse the two. Your actions have caused harm to the consumers.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Also, explain to me how downloading something the artist wants you to pay for is not violating artist intent, you fucking idiot.

They intend to give you their art ONLY IF YOU PAY FOR IT. If they did not, they would give you the art for free.

Since that is the case, you are violating artist intent by pirating.

You've defeated yourself with your own system.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Something cannot be someone's work unless they own it.

If they do not own it, it is not theirs.

As I have just shown with the Audio Home Recording Act, it's not illegal.


Wrong.

You are continuing to pretend that there is a precedent for pirating. There is not.

I didn't say it was, you delusional moron.

They want to stop copying because of thieves, not because of personal use. Do not try to confuse the two. Your actions have caused harm to the consumers.

it's like building a house, if you get a contractor to build you a house, the contractor does not own the house. the difference of course is that art is not an object like a house, it's abstract and should not be owned by even the person commissioning the artist to create it. but why are you asking me about that? it's in the history books, it worked for centuries.

the audio home recording act you linked to was in regard to the rio, which if you actually read it, you'd see that it clearly states it's not legal to copy something like a cd to the rio because the information on a cd directly represents the audio artwork, and is considered to be a copy of the artwork.

what it says is it is legal to copy a song from a hard drive to the rio's flash drive storage because hard drive's usually contain a number of data and software not pertaining to the song, and so the rio itself should not be illegal, as you're copying a song already on the hard drive.

this means that you can legally download a song off itunes, and copy it onto your ipod or music device. but you cannot copy a song from a cd to your hard drive, or your ipod, rio, or whatever.

it also stipulates that it's illegal to record a live stream off the internet onto the rio as the live stream is also considered a copy of the artwork.

you should really read and understand sources before you post.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Also, explain to me how downloading something the artist wants you to pay for is not violating artist intent, you fucking idiot.

They intend to give you their art ONLY IF YOU PAY FOR IT. If they did not, they would give you the art for free.

Since that is the case, you are violating artist intent by pirating.

You've defeated yourself with your own system.

i've already covered this. legally i'm not stealing because i'm downloading music in canada. which is legal, and not theft.

morally i've also covered this, when an artist releases a song on the radio they accept people will make copies as they're listening and that some of them will be satisfied with the copies. pretty much any stereo can record live radio to cassette, and most radio listening software can record it to your hard drive or phone or whatever.

when an artist releases their music on cd, they too have to accept that some people will make recordings and be satisfied with the recordings.

within my model i've also covered this, no one owns the art, and the artist's intent is to be commissioned to create their art and be supported by those who enjoy their art, either an entity or democratically via donations, merchandise, live concerts, live appearances, etc. largely the same way artist's make their money now, just minus profiting directly off digital copies.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

it's like building a house, if you get a contractor to build you a house, the contractor does not own the house. the difference of course is that art is not an object like a house, it's abstract and should not be owned by even the person commissioning the artist to create it. but why are you asking me about that? it's in the history books, it worked for centuries.

The contractor also has zero rights to the house. That's a terrible analogy.

There has not been a model wherein art was so accessible, so easily distributed, or so easy to rebrand.

Originally Posted by yoav

the audio home recording act you linked to was in regard to the rio, which if you actually read it, you'd see that it clearly states it's not legal to copy something like a cd to the rio because the information on a cd directly represents the audio artwork, and is considered to be a copy of the artwork.

what it says is it is legal to copy a song from a hard drive to the rio's flash drive storage because hard drive's usually contain a number of data and software not pertaining to the song, and so the rio itself should not be illegal, as you're copying a song already on the hard drive.

this means that you can legally download a song off itunes, and copy it onto your ipod or music device. but you cannot copy a song from a cd to your hard drive, or your ipod, rio, or whatever.

it also stipulates that it's illegal to record a live stream off the internet onto the rio as the live stream is also considered a copy of the artwork.

you should really read and understand sources before you post.

You should really read and understand what I say before you post, as I stated in my post that the AHRA does not explicitly make ripping a CD legal. But it does show an intent to protect copies of purchased art for personal use.

YOU STILL HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE A LAW THAT CRIMINALIZES RIPPING A CD.

Regardless, you have, over the course of this, admitted that there are unethical uses of art beyond the law, and thus you admit that thievery is not an invention of the law.

Explain to me how it is ethical to violate an artist's intent.