how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[eurotrash karlos]

Originally Posted by yoav

Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million - CNN.com

According to this the RIAA bribed a jury to value downloading a single song at $80,000.

I have about 14200 pirated songs in my itunes right now.

I 'owe' the RIAA 1.136 billion dollars

fuck me?... i don't think so, Fuck the RIAA

thieving cunt

[blackpussy]

/thread

[unrealrob]

I don't mean to start anything up again, but... I live in a country whos laws do not consider downloading music for personal consumption illeagal. As long as it stays that way, I'll keep doing it.
A representative of my ISP and I had a chat one day about my downloading habits consisting of roughly 25-30% pirate bay and limewire. I expressed my opinion on the "piracy" discussion and we apparently saw eye-to-eye. Narry a single comment from them in more than a year. Until things change around here.... I am A-OK with downloading a few songs here and there without paying money to the individuals who created and performed that song. Chock up one more in agreeance with Yoav.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

i argue it needs to change because it's set up in a way that hinders the arts.

It doesn't hinder the arts, it allows the consumer to circumnavigate the correct channels of obtaining art, and thus hinders the artists.

Originally Posted by yoav

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.

This is the heart of the entire thread. You are arguing the ideal, not the reality. The reality is you live in a completely different country, with different laws, and different codes of ethics. You are arguing for laws that don't exist in the realm you want them to in order to fit your ideal world. Your world has art without value. Therefore, the Mona Lisa, the statue of David, the Last Supper, etc. are all worthless because art has no value. Sorry, but the world of art, and the lengths museums go to protect them, proves you are wrong.

In fairness, Bob is doing the same thing. He is arguing that the current American ethics, laws, etc. should also apply to those who live in Canada because the impact is the same on the artists, despite what the Canadian laws say. His argument is ethical, and that should be understood across borders, regardless of what laws say.

This conversation will never end. Someone else will post a topic someday that has the same theme, and it will rehash. You and Bob will not agree. Let it go. You two are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

And I, too, am done with this thread.

[Besmee]

Just a question, I don't do this...

but would it be illegal to get music off Youtube? Like using those sites where you can download videos from Youtube?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by unrealrob

I don't mean to start anything up again, but... I live in a country whos laws do not consider downloading music for personal consumption illeagal. As long as it stays that way, I'll keep doing it.
A representative of my ISP and I had a chat one day about my downloading habits consisting of roughly 25-30% pirate bay and limewire. I expressed my opinion on the "piracy" discussion and we apparently saw eye-to-eye. Narry a single comment from them in more than a year. Until things change around here.... I am A-OK with downloading a few songs here and there without paying money to the individuals who created and performed that song. Chock up one more in agreeance with Yoav.

And here we have evidence of someone who will steal just because he can.

And he isn't commissioning the work from the people he downloads from, either.

What a great way to support art.

Originally Posted by Besmee

Just a question, I don't do this...

but would it be illegal to get music off Youtube? Like using those sites where you can download videos from Youtube?

It very likely is, and I would say that it is unethical, unless the content is supplied by the copyright holder.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

In fairness, Bob is doing the same thing. He is arguing that the current American ethics, laws, etc. should also apply to those who live in Canada because the impact is the same on the artists, despite what the Canadian laws say. His argument is ethical, and that should be understood across borders, regardless of what laws say.

I asked yoav to provide a reasonable counter to my ethical argument, and he talked himself into a corner.

Theft is when something is owned, and profiting off of others' art is theft, but art is not owned.

Art has no value according to capitalism, except that capitalism determines value through supply and demand, and so capitalism is bad.

It is only unethical to violate artist intent, except when yoav violates an artist's intent.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Besmee

Just a question, I don't do this...

but would it be illegal to get music off Youtube? Like using those sites where you can download videos from Youtube?

depends on where you live, in the states the rio case makes it illegal to make a recording/save content onto a hard drive that's streamed to you. you're allowed to record it onto a cassette tape though.

youtube videos are streamed(i don't think they're stored in your browser cache), but the server wouldn't know if you're streaming it as part of a web page(into memory) or into a file on your hard drive. so getting caught means the riaa has a warrant to forensically scan your hard drive based on some other insident.
with p2p the riaa participates in filesharing and can see your ip which they can trace back to your address with less than 100% accuracy, google historically doesn't share ip addresses over petty things like downloading off youtube, although google doesn't like it cause it messes with their analytics and ad revenue.

i'm not sure if the riaa has control over recordings of live concerts though, especially when it's just some guy in the audience who recorded it, they also don't represent every band in america or the world, and finally, if the owner of the copyrights puts it on youtube and writes in the description that you're allowed to download it then you can.

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by yoav

if it was free to make copies of my shit, and people taking those copies made more people aware of my shit and come out to my shows where they pay me money, instead of a record company that gives me virtually nothing then i wish they would.

I like Yoav.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB

I like Yoav.

You'll be a *perfect* English Major.


(I like yoav, too, but for different reasons)