how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[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.

[j2x]

ohmygod, no wonder some forum members have such high post counts. jesus christ when are you two going to realize that there's no hope in changing each other's minds?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

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..

Their intent is that you pay for it. They do not intend for you to acquire copies of it.

An artist's intent does not have to include people copying their work.

Artists don't intend for you to make copies through radio use either, they intend for you to simply listen to it once.

If artists intended to give you their work for free, they would. They do not.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by j2x

ohmygod, no wonder some forum members have such high post counts. jesus christ when are you two going to realize that there's no hope in changing each other's minds?

right now

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

ohmygod, no wonder some forum members have such high post counts. jesus christ when are you two going to realize that there's no hope in changing each other's minds?

I don't care about changing his mind.

As you have demonstrated, defeating yoav affects other people's position on the issue.

You entered on his side, and left agreeing with me.

That is my purpose.

[yoav]

someone else already asked in this thread but is there a way to block posts by intolerable people?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

right now

If you quit now, it's because you're running from your own stupid statements.

You already had to say you were wrong once. That count can only go up.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

someone else already asked in this thread but is there a way to block posts by intolerable people?

That's right, admit that I've won.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Question for yoav, if he isn't a pussy who blocks me: in your system, if someone declared that their intent was to give a copy of art only if it was paid for, and they do not intend for anyone to receive a copy of their art for free, are you unethical to violate that intention?