how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[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)

[yoav]

Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB

I like Yoav.

Originally Posted by dzagama

You'll be a *perfect* English Major.


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

i'm gonna hurl

[yoav]

No Deal! Jammie Thomas to Appeal $1.92 Million Fine

Is it constitutional to fine someone $1.9 Million for sharing 24 songs? Is it copyright infringement to merely place songs in a shared folder? That and many more questions might be answered in the Jammie Thomas case where she recently said that she would be appealing.

The Jammie Thomas case has been going on since 2007. Back then, she was originally fined $222,000 for sharing 24 songs. It looked like it would be all over back then, but that was when a new twist in the case happened – Judge Davis threw out the case citing a manifest error in law by instructing the jury that merely making songs available via a shared point is copyright infringement. The RIAA appealed the decision to throw out the case, but the judge denied that appeal – paving the way for the re-trial. Unfortunately, right before the re-trial, it started to look like it would be very possible that she wouldn’t get legal council, but she did get new legal council before the case would continue.
Things started to look like it would go her way, but in June, she lost the re-trial and was fined $1.92 million. Serious questions were raised by many over whether or not that fine is unconstitutional as there seems to be a huge discrepancy between the fine itself and actual damage it caused. It is true that one can go to iTunes and pay $24 for the same number of songs. Many argue that the fine is grossly excessive. Not only this, but Richard Marx, an artist whose music appeared in the lawsuit, said that Jammie Thomas “got a raw deal”.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has said that they are willing to settle the case, but there’s new details that have emerged that says that the Jammie Thomas case will continue it’s long, now close to 3 year saga. CNet is reporting that Jammie Thomas is appealing the ruling of the re-trial. There’s citation of what many legal experts have figured about the case, that the appeal is based on the argument that the fine is excessive and unconstitutional.
“She’s not interested in settling,” attorney Joe Sibley said in a brief phone interview with CNet. “She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages. That’s one of the main arguments–that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.”
The RIAA seems to be trying to dump any and every bit of blame onto Thomas though.
“The defendant can, of course, exercise her legal rights,” said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. “But what’s increasingly clear, now more than ever, is that she is the one responsible for needlessly prolonging this case and refusing to accept any responsibility for the illegal activity that two juries decisively found her liable for. From day one, we’ve been fair and reasonable in exercising our rights and attempting to resolve this case.”
Further in the report, there was comments by Thomas’ lawyers that the RIAA did contact her to settle the case, but wouldn’t offer any dollar values. During the trial where she was originally fine $222,000, apparently the RIAA offered to settle the case for $25,000.
It’s unclear on what other grounds Thomas is appealing the case, but one thing is certain, the case will be continuing and addressing the constitutionality of the latest fine. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.