how much do you 'owe' the RIAA?

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by yoav

that used to be illegal :O, making a copy was considered a derivative work.. i think now you're allowed one digital copy for backup purposes ONLY!
unless you mean home movies, in which case it's soon to be illegal

If the copy was added to a filesharing network. I used to have albums on vinyl that I would put on my stereo to record it to a cassette, so I could listen to it on my walkman or my car radio. (Shows how old I am.) The difference was in the distribution of the copy, not the copy itself.

Again, a dead horse long beaten.

[Grapist]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

Again, a dead horse long beaten.

Just like starting up "What would Keith's Justice Do?".

/rolleyes.

[skizzbot]

Originally Posted by yoav

i'm in canada out of the riaa's jurisdiction...

That may be so, but it certainly applies to those of us who are in the states...

[j2x]

Originally Posted by jeffdrafttech

I can't say nothing because I downloaded a bunch of Christmas music on this forum a couple years ago. I also have a few technically-illegal rips of DVDs that I actually already own. I also usually buy used CDs when I buy music and I know that the original purchaser probably ripped himself a copy before selling (supporting the pirating)

I don't download stolen music tracks because my Windows machine is jacked up enough without downloading viruses and spyware via torrents.

Music is really really cheap. It's cheaper than it was 20 years ago. It's kind of a dick move to blatantly steal it. I have less sympathy for hip hop producers because they make a ton of cash with product placements, but they are still definitely getting screwed by illegal downloads.

but what purpose do the publisher's serve if not the interests of the artists? Why is it perceived that by "stealing" music you're stealing from the artist? In truth (I believe) it's the publishers who are loosing a proportionately much larger piece of the pie since most of their profit is gained from CD sales while artists make most of their money through concerts, advertising, and direct sales.

It has long seemed to me that the relationship between artists, their publishers, and their customers is a lot like the one we have nationally between private enterprise, the government, and the taxpayers. It's a giant tail wagging the dog scenario and I think that the public is finally having enough of that shit, in both cases. It is costing us all a lot more for what? Extra bureaucracy? wtf. fucking bs.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

Again, a dead horse long beaten.

I don't think it's a dead horse so long as the RIAA is suing. It takes a lot of people to rise up and demand change.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by j2x

but what purpose do the publisher's serve if not the interests of the artists? Why is it perceived that by "stealing" music you're stealing from the artist? In truth (I believe) it's the publishers who are loosing a proportionately much larger piece of the pie since most of their profit is gained from CD sales while artists make most of their money through concerts, advertising, and direct sales.

It has long seemed to me that the relationship between artists, their publishers, and their customers is a lot like the one we have nationally between private enterprise, the government, and the taxpayers. It's a giant tail wagging the dog scenario and I think that the public is finally having enough of that shit, in both cases. It is costing us all a lot more for what? Extra bureaucracy? wtf. fucking bs.

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

[j2x]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

bla bla bla angry snarl bla

all i'm doing is listening to a few mp3s. say what you will, your opinion matters little to me. i'm not at war with anyone, all i have is peace and love, man.

[DarkKnightJared]

Originally Posted by yoav

itunes? ipods these days have a 120GB capacity. that's $30,000 to fill it up at the itunes store at 99c/song. apple markets ipods to teenagers. most people, teenagers especially don't spend 30 grand on music. Apple and the ipod is a driving force in the pirating movement.

To be fair, though:

Music Downloads, MP3 Downloads, MP3 songs, from eMusic.com

[yoav]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

If the copy was added to a filesharing network. I used to have albums on vinyl that I would put on my stereo to record it to a cassette, so I could listen to it on my walkman or my car radio. (Shows how old I am.) The difference was in the distribution of the copy, not the copy itself.

Again, a dead horse long beaten.

ya but i think the digital millennium copyright act made that exact thing illegal. here it is straight from the cocksuckers' mouth:

RIAA - Piracy: Online and On The Street - June 20, 2009

"If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law, and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."
...
"You may find this surprising. After all, when you’re on the Internet, digital information can seem to be as free as air. But the fact is that U. S. copyright law prohibits the unauthorized duplication, performance or distribution of a creative work. That means you need the permission of the copyright holder before you copy and/or distribute a copyrighted music recording."

That includes making a copy of a cd, or ripping a dvd, there was a clause added that you're allowed 1 backup copy, that's to be used only for backups or you're a criminal, and if someone fixes your computer they are allowed to make one copy themselves to protect your data only and temporarily or their breaking the law and a criminal.

Originally Posted by skizzbot

That may be so, but it certainly applies to those of us who are in the states...

i understand that, and never intended to put the target on anyone else but me, i just wanted to talk about it.

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.

If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.

Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.

All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.

As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.

You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.

even shitty dane cooks can make it big via social networking. he used one of many more appropriate models for artists to get exposure and the only talent it required was internet access.

radiohead and merit are already starting to test the waters and so are other bands, even metallica admitted that they went after napster not because they were on that side of the fence, but because they felt there were other artists that were and felt the conversation/debate/war/whatever should have a strong voice on both ends to make real change and have real impact.

there are tons of bands that have record deals and have a hard time getting exposure still, your argument doesn't hold, and you're comparing the system to a still new revolution in how we regard and manage the arts and creative thought.

the concept that i can write a poem on my blog(mine's actually cc licenced but if it wasn't) and if i see you wrote a similar poem that afternoon and can prove you visited my site SUE you and take your money for STEALING my IDEA is ridiculous, and while I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does at this point, the system NEEDS to change. the concept NEEDS to change.

that change is taking place right now, the guys from thepiratebay.org are being sued, they just appealed and in sweden the pirate party won a seat in the EU. Most green parties also support filesharing as part of their platform. even the itunes store itself was a big step, the idea that you can buy just one song and choose the quality you want it as. take a look at what creativecommons.org is doing. and open source. it's all branches off the same movement.

it's not about stealing vs. not stealing at this point, it's about a renaissance in the arts to suit our current culture and technology. record companies aren't interested in art. they're interested in putting out infomercials and making a profit. you can get kicked out of university for writing an essay that's simliar to what someone else wrote even if you thought of it by yourself because our thoughts are restricted by the man, you're not free to express your thoughts. ideas are intangible and have no intrinsic value.

Originally Posted by DarkKnightJared

To be fair, though:

Music Downloads, MP3 Downloads, MP3 songs, from eMusic.com

i counter this with the kind of person that's spending close to 30 grand on music would by higher bitrate files which cost more than 99c, and that the ipod has a feature where you can have way more songs on your computer and just sync the ones you want to take with you. storage space is irrelevant now, it's ubiquitous, they just found out how to fit 4TB into a square inch with carbon nanorods and iron atoms, the point was how they market storage space.

"hey average consumer, you could fit thirty thousand songs on this device" the next natural step for a comsumer, even one that doesn't pirate is to say "cool how do i get 30,000 songs?". they want you to fill up your ipod so when they bring out 40,000 song capacity you want and need it. which will be in a few months, did you buy your biannual 10,000 songs from the itunes store.

[EastTexas]

I guess I'm the first "piece of shit" as stated earlier to admit I have downloaded music that I don't own. Only piece of shit on these forums I guess.

At $80K per song I probably owe RIAA about $2million.
At $250K per DVD I probably owe MPAA $200 million in DVD's I've rented and copied.

Might as well make it 780 babillion thousand million cause I'll never be able to pay it.

Oh and if RIAA or MPAA is reading this, those are made up, no one here steals things for real.