how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I wouldn't fall under the same argument. If anything, I'd be grandfathered. But I also was not distributing. The digital era puts a different spin on everything.

Bob's right. It's really is as clear as day that downloading music you did not pay for, or pay for the subscription to the sharing service for, is stealing. Everyone keeps trying to justify it by saying it's there, so why not take it? No one wants to be branded a thief because it seems so petty.

Have I done it in the past? Yes. I wanted particular old or obscure songs, went to itunes, didn't see them there, then tried limewire. I have done that for maybe 20 songs in my life. I am a scumbag for doing it. But had itunes had it first, I would have bought it.

i agree it's theft but point out again that downloading a song on limewire is NOT the same as stealing a cd from a record store, in canada ipods and other hard drives have a ~$30 tax which is distributed among artists, in canada it's not considered theft to download music, in canada there is no such thing as illegal music downloads.

i support local artists and shows, and other independents including katg

i believe the system needs to change, on an idealistic level, but also on a feasibility level, there is no sustainable or effective way to enforce copyright law. DRM doesn't work, spying on peoples computers should be illegal, etc.

bob and i may disagree on the need to change the system but in my opinion it's clear and obvious it's not working and cannot work as we move into the future. artists need to get a bigger cut, and labels need to distribute music people like and will buy instead of just music that can be injected full of product placement.

we may also disagree on how to go about enacting change, I believe when a big entity preys on unaware grandmothers for babbillions of dollars and are allowed to because they control and dictate the system they deserve a huge fuck you.

I believe if they're allowed to continue without speaking out against them, the next step will be to sue you for a babillion dollars if you purchase music as a cd and copy the songs onto your ipod, which in current US Copyright Law is ILLEGAL. in fact the RIAA had press releases declaring their will to do just that, several times.

I believe if they're allowed to continue they will make it illegal to overhear club music as you walk by, or for your neighbours to hear you playing music as they walk by your house.

there is no line for an entity like that, for them money trumps freedom and when they are given the kind of power they have now they can only be seen as evil, and something that must be removed from society before they ruin the arts completely and sue me for playing my earphones too loud at the post office.

it's for these reasons that i maintain and persist to fuck the riaa, and apparently rub bob the wrong way(poem a ©Yoav 2009) to such a degree that he tries to unfoundedly degrade and insult me in every controversial thread instead of engage me. it hurts bob, it hurts down deep. if you hit any lower, you'd be at my feet(poem b ©Yoav 2009)

[BrownEyedBtch]

I don't believe namecalling really solves anything either, but I don't speak for Bob, and I glaze over it. In any case, I disagree that the system needs to change. I think the system does not match the convenience of getting what we want with the touch of a button, and that's not the fault of the system. The system has to play catch-up to the convenience of technology, which makes it look like people are getting screwed by being fined $80K per download. Just because it's possible does not mean it's acceptable. I don't worry about who does it because I don't control what others do, and I don't have to live with their consequences.

Honestly, all forms of art are suffering in the digital era. For example, I don't have a lot of money, but I wanted to put some fun art on my walls. I would love to have paintings, but cannot afford them. Instead, I googled travel pictures from all over the world, used my computer to turn them into sepia tones or black and white, then printed and framed them. Is that stealing? Probably. That photographer wanted to take pictures to sell them, but I downloaded them to put them on my wall on my own. If I had the money to buy the original print, I would have. I am just as much a scumbag as the next person, even if it's not music.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

i agree it's theft but point out again that downloading a song on limewire is NOT the same as stealing a cd from a record store, in canada ipods and other hard drives have a ~$30 tax which is distributed among artists, in canada it's not considered theft to download music, in canada there is no such thing as illegal music downloads.

You're right, it's not the same. A CD can only be stolen once, while a digital copy can be stolen infinitely.

Originally Posted by yoav

i support local artists and shows, and other independents including katg

No one gives a shit. That doesn't give you the right to steal.

Originally Posted by yoav

i believe the system needs to change, on an idealistic level, but also on a feasibility level, there is no sustainable or effective way to enforce copyright law. DRM doesn't work, spying on peoples computers should be illegal, etc.

Nothing's going to change, because there's no benefit to giving stuff away for free, and there are still people willing to pay for CDs.

There's no reason to give you cheap shits anything for free because you'll give nothing back for it.

Originally Posted by yoav

bob and i may disagree on the need to change the system but in my opinion it's clear and obvious it's not working and cannot work as we move into the future. artists need to get a bigger cut, and labels need to distribute music people like and will buy instead of just music that can be injected full of product placement.

...That's what many labels do. Many underground labels are supported by people who like music. Not thieves.

Originally Posted by yoav

we may also disagree on how to go about enacting change, I believe when a big entity preys on unaware grandmothers for babbillions of dollars and are allowed to because they control and dictate the system they deserve a huge fuck you.

How about dumb bitches shouldn't prey on artists?

Originally Posted by yoav

I believe if they're allowed to continue without speaking out against them, the next step will be to sue you for a babillion dollars if you purchase music as a cd and copy the songs onto your ipod, which in current US Copyright Law is ILLEGAL. in fact the RIAA had press releases declaring their will to do just that, several times.

I agree that should be stopped. That isn't inextricably coupled with your dumb anti-artist stance.

Originally Posted by yoav

it's for these reasons that i maintain and persist to fuck the riaa, and apparently rub bob the wrong way(poem a ©Yoav 2009) to such a degree that he tries to unfoundedly degrade and insult me in every controversial thread instead of engage me. it hurts bob, it hurts down deep. if you hit any lower, you'd be at my feet(poem b ©Yoav 2009)

The RIAA sucks, yes, but advocating the dissolution of a system that exchanges art for pay is not the right way to go about fighting them.

And insulting you is completely justified. You are a thief. I do not like thieves.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

I don't believe namecalling really solves anything either, but I don't speak for Bob, and I glaze over it. In any case, I disagree that the system needs to change. I think the system does not match the convenience of getting what we want with the touch of a button, and that's not the fault of the system. The system has to play catch-up to the convenience of technology, which makes it look like people are getting screwed by being fined $80K per download. Just because it's possible does not mean it's acceptable. I don't worry about who does it because I don't control what others do, and I don't have to live with their consequences.

Honestly, all forms of art are suffering in the digital era. For example, I don't have a lot of money, but I wanted to put some fun art on my walls. I would love to have paintings, but cannot afford them. Instead, I googled travel pictures from all over the world, used my computer to turn them into sepia tones or black and white, then printed and framed them. Is that stealing? Probably. That photographer wanted to take pictures to sell them, but I downloaded them to put them on my wall on my own. If I had the money to buy the original print, I would have. I am just as much a scumbag as the next person, even if it's not music.

well said, but the real victim here is the tourism industry, the real scumbag is the photographer. who's gonna go travelling when photographers are going around making copies of places and putting it on the net? or worse selling them for profit? imagine the TIAA raided your house and sued you and was awarded 2 million dollars for having 24 pictures of Hawaii on your harddrive.

[yoav]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

You're right, it's not the same. A CD can only be stolen once, while a digital copy can be stolen infinitely.

No one gives a shit. That doesn't give you the right to steal.

Nothing's going to change, because there's no benefit to giving stuff away for free, and there are still people willing to pay for CDs.

There's no reason to give you cheap shits anything for free because you'll give nothing back for it.

...That's what many labels do. Many underground labels are supported by people who like music. Not thieves.

How about dumb bitches shouldn't prey on artists?

I agree that should be stopped. That isn't inextricably coupled with your dumb anti-artist stance.

The RIAA sucks, yes, but advocating the dissolution of a system that exchanges art for pay is not the right way to go about fighting them.

And insulting you is completely justified. You are a thief. I do not like thieves.

im not anti artist though, im anti riaa, i support artists, and i'm not a thief in my country. Furthermore your logic that thieves who steal music for their own listening pleasure don't like music is ridiculously flawed.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

well said, but the real victim here is the tourism industry, the real scumbag is the photographer. who's gonna go travelling when photographers are going around making copies of places and putting it on the net? or worse selling them for profit? imagine the TIAA raided your house and sued you and was awarded 2 million dollars for having 24 pictures of Hawaii on your harddrive.

Not exactly, people will still travel. But the photographer will not be able to make a living if I download his photos and print them myself. That's what makes ME the scumbag.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

im not anti artist though, im anti riaa, i support artists, and i'm not a thief in my country. Furthermore your logic that thieves who steal music for their own listening pleasure don't like music is ridiculously flawed.

If they liked it, they wouldn't steal it. They steal it because it is available, not because they like it.

I don't care if your country permits thievery, you are still a thief.

You are anti-artist if they are asking you to pay them money for their work and you are flipping them the deuces.

[cbooty]

Bob, let me take a shot in the dark here, but do you play in a shitty band that doesn't make any money?

[yoav]

Originally Posted by cbooty

Bob, let me take a shot in the dark here, but do you play in a shitty band that doesn't make any money?

lol already asked and he said no.. it's weird that someone that's so anti pirate knows so intimately their state of mind and rationale.

also check this out
Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded | TorrentFreak

[KatGuhJam]

Little bit of a new question here....

Suppose someone BUYS an edited CD. Is it okay for them to illegally download, through whatever means, unedited versions of the songs with censors?