Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Know what? If you decide to broadcast your work over public airwaves, expect for it to be used in ways that the public decree acceptable. If I go outside and start shouting a new algorithm that makes some fancy improvements in robotics, can I sue you if you use that algorithm on your '07 bot?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Because I am using my time, utilities, equipment and expertise to, not steal your music, but copy it. I would have a problem with you taking my robot, however if you see a part you like on my robot and decide to machine it yourself next year, I have no problem with that.

Isn't copying other robots a large part of FIRST?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

First of all your robot design has not been copyrighted. Secondly I must try and reproduce something that you have designed. I am not taking the product that you created as you are if you take music that someone else recorded. The fact that if you design something for your robot and copyrighted it then it would be wrong for me to copy it without your permission.

When you use your time, utilities, equipment and expertise to "copy" (as in copyright) music, are you also using your musicians, your singing, your abilities to try and clone the music just as if it were a robot part?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

If you were to look at an omniwheel, copy it's design and machine one to suit the purposes of your robot, then do you have to pay huge sums of money in royalties for the patent?

I see the purchase of data as the purchase of an object, such as the omni wheel. If I want to give that omniwheel to a friend of mine, why would the gift be illegal? Distrobution of the omniwheel for proffit would surely be illegal, but why should giving my data to someone else for no proffit be illegal?

Sure there is a loss in proffit, but there's a loss in proffit to every business. I lend a wrench to my neighbor so he can fix his lawnmower, isn't Craftsman loosing that much proffit in wrenches for the wrench my neighbor didn't buy?

We use other's ideas and work all the time without fear of the Engineering Industry Association of America filing lawsuits for copying designs from patents that were not being marketted for proffit.

I understand that intellectual property is supposed to be considerably different than the example I gave above, but really, why should it be?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I'm going to assume by copyrighted you meant patented. This is where real world analogies break down.

Lets say that my friend buys a CD from the store. He goes "Hey Mike, this song is pretty good, you might like it." and then sends me that song. I didn't pay for that song, yet I now have it on my computer. My friend was just trying to be... well... friendly and we are now eligible to be put into a position of extortion by the RIAA. What if I say "This song is worse than the US' foreign affairs policy" and delete it, should I still be prosecuted?

What if I happen to like the song, should I now delete it and go pay $15 in order for another executive to afford his fifth Porsche?

My friend purchased the CD, is it not for him to do what he wishes with it? If this includes giving out free (not for profit) copies to his friends, and the RIAA has a problem with that, they should not have sold him the CD.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I will agree that if you buy an omni wheel and give it to a friend then that is OK. I also do not have a problem with you buying a CD/Video and giving that to a friend as long as you don't keep a copy. It says that unauthorized copying is strictly forbidden. Unless I am mistaken, and I have been before, you are legally allowed to make a copy for your personal use as long as you own the original. If you give away the purchased copy then you are required by law to remove any and all copies.

Mike said " My friend purchased the CD, is it not for him to do what he wishes with it? If this includes giving out free (not for profit) copies to his friends, and the RIAA has a problem with that, they should not have sold him the CD."

Again, on the CD it states that you are not allowed to copy. If your friend has an issue with not distributing music that he has no right to distribute, then he/she should not purchased the CD. The rights to the music belong to the recording company or maybe musician not the person that purchases the music.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I think the OP was questioning if it should be legal, not if it is legal.

All of us in this conversation know downloading and sharing music is illegal, however (as of now) 23 of us believe that it should be legal. Civil disobedience is thus far the prevailing method of attempting to get it legalized.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

So if I can find people that are willing to say that we should be able to print money then this civil disobedience is OK. Laws are written to prevent anarchy. Why does everyone think that it is OK as long as it doesn't effect them. For example, I see that your team has lots of money.Sitting right there in front of our poor team is 6 laptops. We ask to use one of the laptops for price of a box of Krispy Kreams.We all agree that your team has too much money so we should have the the right to the laptop. We leave the event with the laptop and feel good that we have equaled the playing field some what.

Are you OK with this?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

If a majority of the population thinks it is ok, then it should be legal. That is democracy.

If my team and your team both agree that you can have a laptop for a box of Krispy Kremes, then go right ahead. The problem lies in the fact that only your team agrees, not mine.

I'm pretty sure the 18-25 demograph that wish to download music outnumber the population of artists and whatnot.

Welcome to the democratically capitalistic society we call America. Heres a 1,200 calorie burger and 25g sugar soda.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Just for interest's sake, here's a Canadian perspective on this. Canadian law (and especially case law) is very different than U.S. law. There are no longer any grounds to sue for simply copying music in Canada, because the copyright authorities impose a levy on recordable media to account for any potential financial losses due to copying. It amounts to several cents for a single recordable CD (i.e. most of the cost of a blank CD goes toward this levy). Now, because they're already being compensated, and since they're the only ones with standing to sue for infringement (other than individual artists themselves, who can't be troubled to appear in court over a few dozen copies of their songs), music copying for personal use is pretty much unlimited, even if it might technically be a violation, because they're already being compensated in lieu of damages. (Provided that you use media on which the levy was paid.)

I'm not touching whether it's objectively right or wrong, though...copyright law here is bad enough, but look at the "Mickey Mouse" amendment to U.S. law if you want to see real depravity.

Or, alternatively, it's called tyrrany of the majority. If 50% + 1 of the U.S. population decided, "hey, we outnumber the Whites now, let's oppress them", would you agree in principle, that it should be legal? And what happens if you can't get a majority (say, there are 3 distinct points of view, or worse, a continuum of views)? What to do about the deadlock? Sorry, but this is no way to run a government.

Real democracy (as in, every citizen gets a vote on everything) is not a stable or an ethical way to run a government, because, simply put, most people do not become sufficiently informed to vote on every single issue with any sort of eye to the larger picture. Even if they were sufficiently informed, that 50% + 1 scenario, or something like it, could easily become reality.

Fortunately, nobody lives in a real democracy. We have levels of government that, if nothing else, exist to make sure that craziness like the above doesn't happen easily, because the representatives must cater to the whims of all people, and not just those in the majority. It's also why a representative's duty is not simply to act in accord with the majority of his constituents—he's supposed to be the one who distills the many disparate points of view into a reasonable solution. While this rarely works perfectly, it's better than mob rule.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I am personally opposed to the RIAA. They make decisions based upon their own opinions, not those of the artists that they're trying to "protect". There is no need for the organization as a whole, since the actions that they take do not reflect the music community as a whole, just the executives that operate the members of the RIAA.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I may be wrong but from what I read, most of the members of the RIAA are production companies and Music labels. There are some artists but not a lot. Remember though, that usually the rights are owned by the labels, as they are the ones that sign the artists to contracts and pay them royalties..

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Artist must be involved because I can see the lables they have started to produce their own records and those artist they discover. I just wonder how much of a say they have.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Even if it is democracy, last time I checked, the United States of America was a Republic...

I am against the RIAA, currently. The music backing up, etc, is obviously one of the biggest flaws. Also, free music sharing, to a limited extent, can also serve to help increase profit. You hear some music you like, you go buy it. etc.
But, there are those who do pirate vast quantities, and even profit off of the illegal distribution of music. I think the RIAA needs to focus it's efforts on those who use pirating as a means of income, or those who seriously do cause a financial dent in the recording companies, not those of us who own 2 or 3 burned CDs.
Encoding CDs, etc, to prevent us from "ripping" songs from them, only stops those who are not determined, aka the "little guys". The more determined, often those who stand to profit from it, will just evolve their technology as well.