RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I'm just curious about the ratio of pro/anti RIAA advocates here on this forum.

Vote YES, I DO SUPPORT or NO, I DO NOT SUPPORT.

Thank you.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Being an artist I support them.
They worked hard to create their works of art and deserve to be rewarded for their work.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I can't support them at all until they actual take something to trial. 100% of their lawsuits have been either dropped or settled. Not a single precedent has been set, and they don't mind at all. They're raking in dough that they never could because they can sue for much more profit than they can sell cds.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Well, I have to say nix on the RIAA. I mean, if a fan really likes the music, they'll go out and buy the album. You can't support a band and claim to be a fan if you download their music.

Plus, the RIAA hasn't done much good, and they've had many examples of very large mistakes and negative actions. For example, the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against a woman who has never bought, turned on, or used a personal computer for using an "online distribution system" to obtain unlicensed music files. (for more info on fun stuff like this, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Criticism )

And plus, did the artists even ask for their "protection"? This is the singer of Disturbed. I can think of a couple of other bands that don't want the RIAA to do what it does (Anti-Flag, for example).

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I'm lovin' some these RIAA images I'm finding online (can't post the best one though. Too vulgar for these pages)





The internet is soooooo fun!

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

That it is.......I love those pictures!

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

While I support the rights of artists and their property, I cannot say that I love the RIAA. Especially when they complain about things like ripping a CD to your computer so you can put the music on your iPod. If I bought the CD, then why should I be forced to buy the song a second time if I want to listen to it on my iPod, or a third time if I want it as a ringtone on my phone, or a fourth time if I want to listen to it via a streaming media server in my house?

It's like buying a set of rims for your car, only to have the car company tell you that you will be sued if you ever put those rims on a different car. It's only possible to use the rims on one car at once, so does it really matter if you decide that you like them better on your other car or not?

If I buy a CD, and copy the music onto my iPod, I'm never going to be using both at the same time - I'll either be using one or the other. So there will only be one copy of the song at most ever playing. Would this not constitute "fair use" under Copyright law? So why should I get penalized for making backup disks of my CDs or ripping the music to my computer to archive it?

Or here is my favorite one. According to WIRED news, the RIAA wanted to hack people's computers to delete mp3 files that it found. If the RIAA ever hacked my computer and deleted my files, how could they prove the original source of the files and whether or not they were illegal? What if I wanted to listen to some tunes while I work, so I purchased a few mp3s and legally downloaded them, only to have my legal mp3 files deleted by the RIAA solely because of their file extension?

If they did do this to me, they would have illegally infiltrated my computer network, snooped around my private files, and then destroyed my property. Last I checked, hacking was illegal and destruction of private property was fair grounds for a lawsuit.

There is a right way to protect the rights and intellectual property of people. The RIAA is not one of them.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The RIAA didn't work hard to create the music, the musicians did. I have yet to see one artist claim to receive a penny from all of these settlements, however.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

RIAA or no RIAA, most of us will continue to download music. However, I know there is a potential consequence. I do the only thing that can be done in the situation...I deal with it. Some bands want the protection of the RIAA - they get it. Those are the bands the RIAA exists for.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Interesting so far. 18 no's and 1 yes. I had expected maybe a 2-1 ratio... not an 18-1.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

19-1

edit: ChiefDelphi has smart people on it? Bet dslr wouldn't be far off.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Yeah I'm the only one who voted otherwise and I have to admit I don't know much about the situation. Does the RIAA represent artist or record companies? Becasue I have seen artist who have openly endored the RIAA's side of the arguement.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I agree with the artist created their work and they deserve to be rewarded, I don't support the RIAA though. I buy all my music legally, from iTunes, but only after I have had a chance to sample the music. I don't like DRM and hate the fact that the RIAA is pushing it onto us. I can understand the need for DRM, but at the same time do not feel that it allows the freedom that has been allowed under US copyright laws.

If it were not for me downloading music, mostly one or two songs from bittorrent, limewire, kazaa or other applications, I would not have a huge legal collection amounting to well over $4000 worth of music. If I like music I buy it, when I buy it I look for more music like it. Kinda an infinite loop :D

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I don't like the RIAA just because they're weird. But thats just my opinion.

I mean yeah, they're trying to protect the artist (thats my impression of it) but like Mike said
But think about it..."back in the day" when people used to use cassette tapes to record songs off the radio, kinda reminds me of how people now (illegally) download music.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I did not vote. The reason is that even in this thread I could not find Proof of allegations or a definite mission statement from RIAA.

If they stand for the stopping of illegal downloads of music and videos, I am with them. If they stand for stopping file sharing of copyrighted property, I am with them. If however they are against my right to back legally purchased music for personal use, I am against that.

Downloading of music that is not purchased legally is against the law. This is a fact. Those that produce the music have rights. You and I have rights. I know that if I came into your pits at an event and took your laptop, robot or robot parts you might get upset. Why would you if you see no issue with downloading music or videos?

The thread on Legalities discusses a lot of what is right and wrong so I will not continue ranting. I will however answer questions if asked.

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.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

a federal democratic republic.


It's amazing how heated these debates can get.

Current ratio ~ 9-1 no-yes

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

It's simple for me: If they were quiet and didn't sue the **** out of whomever they felt like, I wouldn't mind.

But since they are being ***-**** to the customers that buy their ****, they can sit on a tack. (Don't argue the point - Sony's rootkit affected more honest people than pirates. They've classified copyright infringement as theft, equal to shoplifting. Most counter-measures affect the buyers and not the freeloaders.)

(Pardon the language.)

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Personally, I think we're on the verge of a paradigm shift. I have a feeling that intellectual property laws will drastically change over the next few decades.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/19/0342256

You have to realize that laws and morals are up to the people that enforce them. Each generation seems to change what it feels is important. As people change their attitudes toward social issues, laws change to reflect their new ideals. That's why women can vote and we don't have slaves.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I see the change happening much sooner. Over the next half decade, we'll see drastic changes to laws concerning intellectual property.

Also why a Hutu minority controlling the people were able to commit genocide against almost a million Tutsi.

I share a similiar vision of the future as William Gibson, a future of revolutionaries and extreme polarities in culture. I want to believe that educated people will soon care enough to stop dangerous organizations such as the RIAA the same way Linux and GNU is fighting the Microsoft monopoly.

This poll so far has shown that the stunning majority of educated people who care about our future also care enough to want the reign of the RIAA to end.

This poll helps to confirm my vision of radical changes appearing in the near future brought by victims of the RIAA.

This also helps to support my theory that politics and free knowledge to do not match well. As we see politicians get more involved with the internet, we see the quality of the internet decrease with proposed regulations on internet traffic, content, and services.

Perhaps I'm crazy or perhaps I just want to see the internet restored to it's less threatened state 5 years ago, but I do not believe citizens' rights can be protected when there is an organization that has become so radical that has suggested students drop out of school to pay the RIAA fees, filed lawsuit against deceased grandmothers, and even tried to sue people who have never used computers without even the slightest suggestion of a crime.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Well you see, the internets is a series of tubes. Its not just something you dump information on, not a truck.

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Vast amounts of information, vast amounts of information.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I am sorry but you are a bit flawed in your presumptions. At the time of this post there were a total of 36 votes. You do not know who voted, the level of their "education" or their knowledge of the subject. In this thread there have been a lot of things said with no back up with facts. As you will learn, the "majority" is not always right.

As I have said before, I cannot find enough data on the RIAA to make an educated decision. Because of that I cannot condemn or condone their actions. Most of what I read here is that people want things for free. It doesn't matter that others are hurt in the process as long as they get everything for free. I cannot see this happening in the near or distant future.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

It's the Internet Effect.

Nowadays anything you can ever imagine is just a few clicks away, and most of it can be obtained for free. (Even if illegally.)

As the number and extent of Internet usage continues to climb, we are shaping the future of the Internet. But at the same time, the Internet is shaping our own future. Instant knowledge and gratification are now becoming increasingly part of our daily lives. A decade ago having Internet access was a privledge. Nowadays I can take my laptop, walk down my street, and come across nearly half a dozen unprotected Wi-Fi networks. In my house I can pick up two other networks, besides my own.

This Internet Age does not necessarily mean that society is taking a turn for the worse; rather is means that we are simply redefining our values. Any many of these values, although different, may quite have positive long-term benefits to society. Information and getting it quickly to people is the way of the future. Larry Page and Sergey Brin saw this in the late 1990s, and only a few years later Google is one of the world's biggest technology companies.

Living in Connecticut, I saw first hand how quickly blogging and the Internet caused Ned Lamont (who was totally unknown) to rise to popularity and win in the Democratic primary over the three-term Senator Joe Lieberman. The more people utilized the Internet, the more they seemed to like politics, and the more passionate they were for supporting their canidates. Because of all this, there was an extremely high voter turnout (as compared to historical primary attendence) in the Connecticut primaries.

Is democracy not the government of the people, by the people, for the people? Is the Internet not increasing public awareness and passion towards politics and being involved in shaping the future of the United States, and ultimately the world?

When other people look at the Internet, they may see anarchy. But I see freedom, democracy in action. Here is finally a global virtual world of the people, by the people, for the people. Here is our future. Some say war and forceful occupation of foreign countries is the best way to spread democracy. I say just give all six billion people on this planet one-hundred percent unadulterated and unfiltered Internet access, and anti-democratic governments will crumble faster than the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

As long as the internet exists, there will always be filesharing that is considered illegal. Burning CDs / DVDs for friends, P2P transfers, torrenting - it cannot and will not be stopped. As you can see, the RIAA has had to take some pretty extreme measures against people. Suing individuals will do nothing in the long run, it's only being used as a scare tactic that's failing horribly. They don't need the money, they're just trying to discourage people from downloading. Tristan's post on the Canadian law is probably one of the best solutions I've ever heard.

It really is sad though in this day and age that the only way that artist's music make it on the radio and TV is if they sign with a large record label. Sure, there are some bands that have made it pretty well and are independants, but they're few and far in between. And those labels usually dictate what the band can and cannot do. And those labels are usually under the RIAA, so the artists usually don't see a dime of the money the RIAA is supposedly getting from their actions.

I do not support the RIAA in any way, shape, or form. Viva La Revolution.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The way I see it is that many of the popular artists today are absolutely aweful performing live (and I affirm my conclusion with Nelly Furtado's and Timbaland's performance on tonight's Teen Choice Awards). Thier success and immense profit is probably due mostly to some unknown guy in front of a fancy computer at the recording studio. Many of today's popular artists have such horrible voices (when performing live) and poor performing skills that they are lucky to sell any CDs at all. They should be happy that people actually want to download their music.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I know that this might be a little hard to understand but there is a lot of money being lost to people who pirate music. On the surface it would seem harmless, but the effect on the industry and on you is beyond your wildest imagination. The RIAA has been around a long time and during that period they have help set standards for music reproduction that have formed the world as we hear it. Without their efforts, hifi would have meant 50 5000 Hz instead of the 20-20kHz accepted today. Many of the pirated selections that are reaping the largest profit are substandard copies of some excellent artists and their greatest works. Substandard copies do nothing to advance the art or educate the listening public as to excellence in recording art. The RIAA is trying to protect the future of the recording industry. You don't have to agree with their goals but they are trying to cover a lot of problems that will make your enjoyment of music last a lifetime. The biggest problem for any recording artist these days is the pirating of music. It has become prevalent throughout the world but particularly in technologically advanced countries like the US. You can see a representative group who has already answered here and who think copying music for their own use is not illegal. Well it is, it's stealing no matter how you cut it. Just because almost everyone you know does it, does not make it right. When you borrow a friend's CD and rip it on your computer, your are stealing. Each copy you cut for someone else continues the theft. For example, your are lead guitar in a moderate band and a record company thinks you have a future. They contract with you to cut a CD for which you will make 3 cents on everyone sold. The CD takes off and you think it's pretty cool, you are going to see some real money coming in which will allow you to invest in some new amps, maybe buy a composition or two from another artist and get started on a road show. The record execs tell you that predictions are that the market will likely top out at sales of 650,000 units. That's about $20K in your pocket. Someone early on thinks your CD is pretty hot too and they start the campaign on getting copies of your material onto web sites and e transfers across the country. You start to see the sales numbers which shot up in the first few weeks dwindle to nothing. Everyone is talking about how hot your band is but no one is buying the disc and the record execs come back and tell you, "Sorry, we thought you were hot and were going some place but the sales are just not there." The second CD deal is canceled, the road show is canceled and your band dissolves before your eyes. Your projected $20K tops out at $8-10K and you take it, pay your bills and go to work for Target and see your CD in the $3 discount rack at the checkout. It's a harsh reality that is playing out everyday. If you are really hot, then there are the real professionals (thieves) who are out making look alike copies which are being sold and you see nothing from the sales. Wouldn't you want an advocate, someone to go after these thieves and who will share your legal expenses to get them prosecuted. If you were an artist, you would want to belong to the RIAA and you would want someone fighting for you so you could devote your time to advancing your art. If music is important to you, then don't copy it.
Signed,
A person who works in the music industry...

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

OK. It's simple. Stealing is stealing. If it's for sale and you don't pay for it, it's stealing.

Side Note: I must be the only Dead Head here on CD. Trading for non-commercial personal use of Grateful Dead shows has always been allowed and encouraged. They allowed tapers into all the shows and if you were a regular, they allowed you to tap into the sound board.

It's still allowed, but has some restrictions. See http://http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#245




And A Stupid Question...

If I pay $20.00 for a CD and I don't want it anymore will the RIAA be upset if I sell it on eBay for $10.00? I'm selling the original.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I hand my buddy my headset so he can give commands in CS computer. Now is he stealing from logitech for not buying the headphones? You really can't simplify a topic like that. Stealing in this case is based on your perspective. I see music as data, companies see music as licenses. They way you view music changes what can be done or not done with it.

yes, that would be illegal. They claim you paid for a license to the music, not the music itself. That is why people have been brought under lawsuit for selling iPods on ebay that have not been wiped.


I disagree. Musicians are still making millions of dollars off their music. I have yet to see any musician file bankrupt because pirates have taken significant amounts of proffit.

The RIAA blames every loss in sales on pirates and yet there are extremely large communities that are boycotting music to force the RIAA to stand down. The RIAA tends to spin losses even from boycots into more reasons for stricter legislation. Music has always been copied, "pirated", and purchased illegally. That's just an assumed fact of sales.






I might add, while I disagree with the RIAA tactics, I also do not download or pirate any music. Any music I listen to is either from free based artists that use services such as the older Ampcast to gain respect and reward for their music or it is paid for.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Unfortunately, you are not hearing about the muscians who are being decimated by the pirating of music. Most musicians are on the financial edge as it is, if they fall off, or turn to other income streams to live, you never hear about it. It still is happening all the time. How many bands do you remember hearing only one song from? Did you have a band you thought was going to make it big that just disappeared?
Music has only been pirated, copied, etc. when the technology has made it easy. Prior to cassettes it was very difficult. Of course it took a while for the general public to talk themselves into stealing and calling it OK. When people made themselves believe it wasn't stealing and it was easy to do, they began doing it in a big way. How many people do you know that regularly copy music? Say each one of them has caused a loss of revenue this year of 25 cents. How much money does that add up to for this year in lost revenue? Does that sound like the number the RIAA is claiming it cost the industry this year? Musicians are not the only ones losing out on this. I know of at least one hundred recording studios that have gone out of business in the last 10 years. All of their hardware is on a shelf waiting to be sold to recupe the money their investors and banks lost when the businesses folded. That's a lot of people out of work as well. We may not be talking millions, but if you were one of them and you couldn't put food on the table for your family, you would be pretty upset. Everytime you heard someone talk about copying a CD you would cringe.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Feel free to show me an examples of bands that was forced to turn to other avenues of life because of pirated music and not because they failed to make successful music, develop their image, or change with popular culture.

It may be happening all the time, but I would expect the RIAA to be the first to bring up cases in which artists were conclusively being decimated by pirated music and not being decimated for only producing one song or producing only mediocre material.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The RIAA is out to protect the artist... something like that. They're acting on behalf of the recording companies more than the artists. I have never heard of an artist receiving money from one of the RIAA's lawsuits, have you? Most artists make their money off of their concerts; ticket sales, shirts, etc. How much do you really think an artist is making per song?

Let's, since it's most appropriate, look at iTunes. Selling a single song for 99 cents, how much do you figure the artist makes? Less than they used to. It used to be as much as 30 cents, and now it's down to a dime per song. Over iTunes, a standard cd is making an artist a whopping $1.60, and that's only if a person buys all of the songs on the album.

Who's screwing the artists?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

OK,
I have been trying to get some hard numbers from some reputable sources so here is one with a pie chart and everything...http://cgi.cnn.com/interactive/enter...t.exclude.html
If you take a close look, there are a lot of people who have their hand in the pie who have nothing whatsoever to do with the performance. Of the $16.98 reported by Billboard Magazine to CNN only $1.99 goes to the artist/songwriter. If they are two people they split the fee. Out of that money the songwriter pays the publishing house, agent fees, copyright fees, legal, etc. The artist pays the recording studio fees, the backup musicians, the rental equipment for recording, all of the material (DAT tapes, cd blanks, etc.), engineering fees and then himself if anything is left. Often the recording company has a contract with the artist that requires a minimum number of personal appearances, guests shots on talk shows, interviews, shopping center opens etc. They may pay for the travel or they may not but the performances are usually gratis or industry minimums. For tours it is very hard to make money at the artist level because of all of the people involved. And if you hit it really big and CD sales exceed expectations, costs go down and profits go up. The hard fact is, after all of this hard work, with everyone and their brother with their hand in your pocket you are further pressed by people who are taking money from you without anymore involvement than owning a computer with a CD drive and some software. You don't see even a single cent per copy from the bootleg. If you further research the recording sales data you will see that sales has fallen from a peak in 2000-2002 while the costs of living has risen.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Here's an interesting article that you may want to read:

http://www.bricklin.com/recordsales.htm

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Ben,
Exactly my point! The author more or less agress that CD sales have been hurt in terms of number of units. He goes on to state that the total revenue is up because of higher pricing but it is not keeping step with inflation. Musician cost of living keeps rising while revenue remains flat and sales continue a downward slide. One should also note that the article is undated but quoting four year old statistics and an RIAA data sheet from 2001.

The author goes on to try and attribute some reasoning behind the numbers by trying (without the benefit of sound demographic statistics) to classify the CD buying public and show that there is a perceived change in buying habits among the different population types. If you were to look at later data (the most recent RIAA data which displays through the end of 2005) you would see an even more significant drop in sales units. Now that gas is at an elevated level, the shipping costs are starting to skew for even less profit. I am sure this will be reflected in the dismal numbers for 2006 as well.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Nice article but 4 years old. I live in Toronto and ride the TTC occasionally. I would guess that at least 35% of the other people have MP3 players in their ears. That is a huge difference to the amount I saw when there were tapes and CDs. If even half of them (by your numbers much higher) were stealing their music just look at the loss. Read some of Al's numbers and compare with your ideas and see if they balance out.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

As far as stealing music, I don't believe that art should have a financial value, or even be allowed to be copywritten. As an artist (paint, pen, paper, and drums) I don't believe that art should be sold. I stil pay for all of my music, but it erks me all the time.

As for the RIAA, I'm issuing people a challenge. Show me hard numbers from reputable sources showing them doing any GOOD. This means money going to artists after a settlement, or artists being reimbursed for their "loss." If people can show me even a single case of that, then the RIAA has done its job. If not, it's simply another annoying machine in our overly congested American dream...

Pirates... ARGH!
 

We're not looking at a moral issue here, we're looking at an economic one.


Sometimes people lose out when new tech, or a new economic idea comes around, they can either adapt or die. That's life in the free-market world of capitalism. We could have outlawed the light bulb because the candle making trade was going to be annihilated, or we could have outlawed cars because they put horse-breeders at risk. We could have done it, and kept those wonderful people employed in what they do best, but society as a whole would be denied these things. Legislating this stuff, while it does ensure people don't get brushed aside by the brutal pace of technology, just puts a freeze on tech growth and innovation, and denies society as a whole of many wonderful things.

P2P networking is very dangerous to business models based upon large production costs to produce a final product (such as Hollywood films), however the practically zero distribution costs means that small groups that can produce quality content can easily cast their net much wider than they could before. Meaning that if this became a normally acceptable thing in society, that large businesses and non-physical distribution chains have just about everything to lose... While small mobile businesses and individual creators have everything to gain and profit from. (Read "The World is Flat" if you want to explore this idea)

It isn't stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property. When a resource is infinite (as this technology makes things), than I consider hording that resource all to yourself, dictating who is to use it, for what purpose, and in what way is morally wrong.

The RIAA will do everything in their power to kill this stuff, because it ultimately means doom for them and the companies they represent. Now we can let the free-markets take their course, and have new innovative companies and ideas spring to life to take their place and make everything better overall, or we can put a freeze on technology so that these people and companies remain in power and any upsetting ideas are made illegal.




Your choice.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Craig and Chris,
Interesting.... If you were to set pen to paper and produced a spectacular sketch of the Lower Falls at Yellowstone N.P. and then you turned around and gave it away to the masses you would feel really great that the world was enjoying and benefiting from your work. What if the first person to accept the drawing instead chose to print off copies and sell them and it turned into a marketing success story where that person was raking money by the bushel. What would your reaction be? Wouldn't your attitude change? Wouldn't you see that you could benefit from your gift even in a small way but that someone else was not only reaping financial rewards but was undermining your original intentions? Would you continue to draw and give away?
Using the horse vs. car analogy...This isn't new tech improving the way things are done. In your analogy, this would be the masses coming in and taking your horses each night to pull wagons for them for free. You don't know who "they" are but your business is being hurt because your customer base is turning to the other people who are providing horses at night. You see your business dwindle and your horses tire and you start to talk to other teamsters who are having the same problem. You all decide you need to find these perpetrators and do something to prevent them from taking the horses. You realize that it needs someone to be watching all the horses every night and you all decide you can't watch horses and sleep. So you decide to form a group, an association, where everyone will pay a little into a common fund. Then the fund will pay someone to watch out each night and find a way to prevent the taking of horses each night.
To put this another way that may make more sense...You approach another team, Wildstang for instance. You see that they have a new wheel design that is better than omni wheels. Everyone is crazy for the new wheels. Wildstang gives you one to hold and even to borrow to show your team and other friends. You have a machine that can copy any mechanical part in a few seconds. You take the wheel and copy it and start selling it as an Team XYZ new and improved wheel. Then you go over to the Thunder Chickens and get them to give you one of their new transmissions to see and understand. You take that tranny and copy it and sell it and/or give to friends. Then over to the Martians for an aiming mechanism, to SigmaCats for a base, and Beachbots for ball accumulator, etc. Is any of this right? Did you not steal the wheel from Wildstang and the tranny and all the other parts and profit from them in some way? Even if you just started handing them out for free to just your friends, did someone do something wrong? Was someone hurt by your actions? Did you violate GP? Think about your answer, remember GP.

Re: Pirates... ARGH!
 

You make some good points however misguided. The RIAA is protecting what belongs to them. It is no different than your team making a part for your robot and me coming to your pit area and taking it. Or take IFI for example. You are provided with a part (control system) You own the box, however the intellectual property belongs to IFI. You do not have the right to copy or reproduce without their permission. Now if you feel that it is OK to copy and reproduce, IFI will lose it's revenue stream. That means an increase to all of the legal owners as the increase costs (development & production/ purchases = cost to company) are passed on so that the company can survive. Eventually, as Al stated so well, it will not pay and the company will shut down production. Now we are all losers. The reasons for patents and copyrights are to protect those that spend the money to develop the product. The fact that others don't take the chances, have the inability, or are just to lazy to produce their own material should not minimize the work of the industrious, intelligent and hard workers.

Basically if you reproduce any copyrighted/ patented material without the express written permission of those holding the rights then you are a basic common thief. There is no other way to look at it. It is no different than breaking into a house and stealing the contents, using someone else's credit card without their permission, or taking parts from some other teams pit area. It is black and white. You either have the rights or not. You may not like what I say, but as of now, that is the law.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I am definitely do not support the RIAA. With that being said, I also pay for my music through iTunes.

Quite frankly, it's not worth buying a whole CD. In today's "bubble gum music" culture there is only 1 or 2 decent songs per album. Why pay $13 to $18 for a CD when you only want a couple songs available on iTunes for $2. This is common sense.

I have a couple problems with the RIAA and copy protection in general:

• If I scratch a CD can I get a new copy of the CD at cost plus shipping and handling? Nope, at that point the CD is considered physical property and is "broken." I thought I bought a license? Oh you mean that license just really limits me to what I can do with what is my physical property.
• Someone has already mentioned this: the Sony Root Kit. If you or I did this we would be arrested and charged with some type of obscure computer crime. If Sony, a corporation, does it it was just an "accident."
• Every file downloaded is not a lost sale. Period.
• Why do I have to backup my iTunes music? Apple knows I bought the song. Why can't I download the songs that I have lost due to regular computer problems. I thought I bought a license?

Finally something that deeply troubles me is the lawsuits. I really start to wonder about how free our country is when I hear about them. Essentially, the RIAA uses the US legal system as it's own syndicated crime unit to torture people who may not even own a computer. For a good explanation on how the RIAA extorts money out of people check this article out: The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to file sharing lawsuits.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

But that's the exact point wer made earlier. Many of these teams make their own omniwheels, which are all patented, and I bet none of them take the time to pay royalties to the inventor. Should we be forking out money if we are not marketting the omniwheels?

There justification is, if you use it and not paying for it, it's stealing. Yet we loan parts and designs all the time. Are we then all thieves for using parts we got from other people that we did not buy? RIAA and our current intelllectual property laws suggest that we are.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

If you are copying patented hardware, YES. If however you are making wheels based on a design, that would not be called lawfully breaking the patent, then it would be OK. If you notice, some artists have successfully sued other artists for copyright infringement for similar music. I don't know where the law will draw the line on where building something similar crosses the line. That is a totally different discussion.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Here's the one issue I see in this argument, though it is a very good point (especially the horse thing... hadn't thought about it that way). Selling pirated media, I'm all for a group to take that down. But freely distributing it, I believe that's a good way to get the name of a band out. If a friend gives me a song of a band, and I like it, I'll go out and buy the CD. I most likely won't delete that song, as it saves me a tiny bit of time when uploading the CD to my computer. Does that still make that song illegal? According to the RIAA, yes, it does. That's why I disagree with their flawed methods of "protection".

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

If it were a great idea to distribute free music, why don't the artists do it? On ITunes there are free downloads every week that are legal. That is one way of getting your music out there. If the artists want to give their music away for free they will but they know if they do that they might end up at Walmart as greeters instead of touring, making money.

Re: Pirates... ARGH!
 

Wouldn't that same logic then say that it's alright to freely distribute any software that was not intended to be free?

I think that what the recording industry doesn't understand is that many people use P2P services for their music because there isn't a good alternative. $20 dollars for a CD is ridiculous, and $1 a song isn't that much better. It also doesn't help that online music services put copy protection in the music. Once music is available at a reasonable price, without copy protection, and at higher quality than it's available for free, many people will stop using P2P networks for their music and start buying it.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Not to add anything to the fire but just to fix in your mind some history...
In 1973 an LP from the Columbia Record Club, was about $12.99 plus shipping. That was roughly 24 times the cost of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gasoline. Price should not enter into a discussion like this. That was when the minimum wage was $1.65/hr. and a $400 week was a good wage.

Re: Pirates... ARGH!
 

Even though I disapprove of the way the RIAA handles many issues, I still obey the law. I don't use P2P networks to pirate music or applications. In fact, I've never even installed a P2P client on any of my computers.

I think a lot of people miss the point in this. If you don't want to pay for something, and you take/download/smuggle/pirate/etc. it anyway, you are stealing - regardless of what it is. Simply put, if you do not like how overpriced music is, then don't buy (or illegally download) it! Go out and listen to Creative Commons licensed music, or music that is legally free to download.

As many said, this is capitalism. And the best way to make a statement in capitalism is not to steal things ilegally, but it is to simply to boycott the goods or services being offered.

If you want some good websites that offer free (for personal, non-broadcast use only) or Creative Commons-licensed music, try some of these:

http://www.ccmixter.org/
http://www.freeplaymusic.com/
http://www.ocremix.org/
http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Well actually, there are alot of musicians that do give their music away for free. Take a look at Ampcast and MP3 Unsigned. Those are DJs and artists that produce music in supportive of free media and are not greedy enough to charge for their productions.

Most of these artists make their money from live performances and leave recorded music open for all to enjoy.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Then those were overpriced too... Production costs, if anything, have most likely gone down since then anyway.

I agree, it's more of an excuse that people use for stealing music than a reason that they do.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I see the points from both sides on this one. I understand that people that depend on their music as a source of income are hurt by illegal copies...but I think that they are just as hurt by the sheer number of people that take a cut out of the money made off of their work product.

What people don't realize is that there is a healthy living that can be made without being signed, and ultimately not being under the RIAA's wing. There is a local band in Chicago (7th Heaven) that has been unsigned since the late 80's. They have taken a complete grass roots approach to their music and they clear $250k a year. On top of playing shows, they also run a local recording studio and web site company. They make their money by living their music. They often play multiple shows per week (at one point they had 7 shows in 6 days). Sure they have roadies and merchandise people that get their cuts, but ultimately, they are smart about the way they do their business.

Here is some recent RIAA news that really ticks me off. Personally, I use tabs found online as a jump start for learning a song. Maybe there's a chord that's giving me trouble, or maybe I know the chords, but there's a simple solo that I can't quite place. That's when I go to the online tabs. Anybody that's ever used online tabs knows that the quality of 75% of the tabs found are sub-par, so it's tough to use them without using some creativity and intuition. If there's something that I want to learn note for note, or is clearly too complex for tabs (i.e. Dream Theater), I will go out and buy the book.

Playing other people's music inspires me to become a better musician. I see tabs as a way for people wanting inspiration to get it from their peers. If someone has a stellar ear and can accuratly transcribe what they hear, then what's the harm in that? Now, if they buy the book and transcribe based on that, I see that as copyright infringement. I view that as translating a book to another language and making it freely available.

What's next? Requiring a band to obtain a license to play a song live?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Please people, do not call downloading music stealing. Again, downloading music is NOT stealing, nor pirating. I don't see any parrots and peg legs, do you?

Downloading music is copyright infringement, calling it anything other would be a strawman's argument.

You steal CDs from the brick and mortar music store, you commit copyright infringement online.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

The point consistently brought up in this discussion is that pirating music is stealing, or that pirating can deprive people of their income, etc...

Lets clarify something....

In a pure free-market system, you cannot guarantee people anything, except for the value of the currency that they use. You cannot garuntee housing arrangements, income, money, working conditions or even a job. Winds that blow in the the world of pure capitalism are unpredictable, and can violently change situations. The good thing is that this tends to create enormous wealth and prosperity, especially for those who understand how it works, the bad part is that there are no guarantees and people can lose out.

When you advocate against ideas or technologies (like pirating), because "someone might lose out, or this band will lose lots of money", than you are advocating for something other than capitalism. We can debate the merits of pure capitalism as an economic model, but that is a separate issue.

The term "intellectual property" is one of the more outrageous terms that has arisen, simply because the entire thing is bunk. Ideas are nothing without the tools, materials, workers, testing, business plans, production lines, or anything else to fruition. Ideas by themselves are worthless.

I've had literally hundreds (I have written documentation of many of them) of really cool ideas. Anything from mechanical inventions, to household products, to power tools, to movie plots. And what have I done with the majority of them? Nothing. But sure enough, given 5-6 years, someone else will independently come up with the same idea, but they'll actually go and do something with it, creating a business, hiring workers, selling the product, and bringing that idea to fruition.

Now, I've probably been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "intellectual property" over the years. Dang it, those were my ideas! But you know what? Even if I did go through the process of copyrighting and suing anyone for infringing on my idea, I'd probably take it with me to the grave, because I would have done nothing with it. And so countless people are deprived of the fruits from that idea.

So what about movies? Millions of dollars are pumped into those ideas. They've gone through countless man hours worth of work, shouldn't they be able to profit? The answer to this rhetorical question really depends on what you think about free-markets.

Free-markets guarantee nothing, and can be quite brutal. If those movie studios lose millions because they invested in a bad business model that was outpaced by technology, than the true capitalist would be saying "tough break, better luck next time". Those that do not fully trust the the idea of free-markets will want things to be more fair, and will try to artificially control and legislate matters so that no one gets hurt, no one loses out, and no one has to suffer.

Capitalism insures nothing to anyone, save for the legitimacy of it's currency (even that made the founders of our Constitution choke). The only crime you can really commit against this economic model is stealing. Stealing is depriving people of their physical money or their physical property. "Intellectual Property" doesn't exist, so it cannot be stolen. You cannot "own" an idea. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that there is no such thing as an original idea, because in some way, all ideas or thoughts that have ever been thought were derived or inspired from others. Ideas are worthless.

The only thing that has any value in the world of capitalism, is physical property.


Do you really believe in capitalism?

-Chris

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

(bolding mine)

This is a side note, but it is quite difficult to have a civil debate when one side is saying that there are no other legimate viewpoints or using ad hominem arguements.

The ideas being discussed here are relatively new, and there is lots of room for discussion and interpretation of facts. Very few things are actually well established by either side, and so there are many ways that we can discuss and argue about the issue. But can we please not resort to this?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

There is nothing new in this discussion. What I bring to the table is the true fact. If you don't believe me then I suggest that you go to the RIAA and show them all of your illegal music, tell them where you got it, sign a statement of the facts and then see if you don't go to jail or get heavily fined. If it were not theft then there would be no debate as I would agree with everyone else. If I am wrong, please show me the law that protects you when you take and copy copyrighted or patented material. Some of those that have opposed my thoughts here have admitted that it might not be legal.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Feel free to provide the laws that clearly define music copywrites and EXACTLY what can and cannot be done with media that has not been debated about in the past few years. This subject is still being debated.

This was the exact point Cyberguy was making. Opposing sides cannot win anyone's mind by telling them that there is nothing more to discuss and that only one sides' views are correct.

You said earlier that "As you will learn, the "majority" is not always right. "

Perhaps you may also learn that "right" is a relative term. What is more important is what people agree upon, because people united can force change.




The purpose this debate and poll was to provide different points of view and different opinions to influence thinking. One side telling another that they are the only ones who are right will not change anything.

I encourage you all to find more evidence to support your opinion of what is right and wrong. That way, this debate can continue as a healthy discussion on the morality of marketted data and copyrights.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Further to Mike's citation, here's the decision (Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)) in the Dowling case; it was a 6-3 decision, so clearly there's no unanimity on this issue.

Most importantly, the court held that "the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple 'goods, wares, [or] merchandise,' interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."

This decision represents case law, which would protect you against allegations of theft in a music-copying case. But while their marketing campaign may call it theft, they're not alleging theft in their lawsuits—and this decision offers no protection for copyright infringement.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I stand corrected. "Infringing" on copyright law is still breaking the law.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Most of these copyright laws are new, starting with the DMCA. For the overreaching severity of these laws, there was not nearly enough input from the public on them, and they were rushed through pretty quickly. There was very little to no debate about the issue. Creating new crimes, outlawing technology, hurting consumers... These are some pretty drastic effects from a relatively small number of laws that affect everyone, and yet were rushed through without much debate or discussion from the people. It was just something they were forced to accept.

While it may have started with the DMCA, new bills are constantly being proposed that will take away our rights under the presumption that we might be getting around laws that we never had a say in creating. Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, so why would an overwhelmingly strong majority of people break the laws that were created in their name, the name of the people? This dissenting majority and their number will only grow with time and frustration.

We're not here to debate what the current legal codes, statutes or supreme court decisions are, we're here to debate the issue itself. Because ultimately, if we we live in a true democracy, the laws should reflect the will of the people, and act according to the consensus of what we as the people dictate.

If the will of the people (the majority) says that a harmful law should be struck down and abolished, shouldn't our democracy abide?


-Chris

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Interesting that you should reference the DCMA which is a law passed in 1998 as a direct result of our participation in international treaties through the World Intellectual Properties Organization. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement but does provide protection for ISPs and universities that act as their own ISP when copyrighted material is downloaded and or stored on their equipment. It also makes it illegal for someone to circumvent anti-copy protection in any form (including writing and distributing software to crack the locks) and it provides for the Register of Copyrights to examine and recommend changes to allow for distance learning without affecting copyrighted material or the rights of the originators of the material.

Yes the laws are passed by a relatively small group of people but that is the way our government works. I doubt that the debate over this subject and the final passing of the bills was done in a relatively short amount of time. You claim a "overwhelmingly strong majority" of law breakers but that is not really true is it? Would you say that 200 million people in this country are making copies of CDs? Or is it only the strong people who copy? What is more accurate is the majority of the people you know are breaking the law. I submit that is much less than a million. As to striking down the law just because a bunch of people say it should be struck down is justs plain wrong. We depend on the people who are running the country to examine each issue, decide it's merit and then make an informed decision. If you want a crack at the process, let's give it a try. I will take the place of the opposition in congress. You try and make a law that covers what you want to do. Now to be fair, you have to examine as many of the outcomes as you can think of. "What happens if I word this bill this way? Who will benefit and who will be hurt? Who will be hurt very badly?" Now you have to be honest and not just consider your own little world. You can't just think about what is happening now, but do some crystal ball gazing and see what your bill will be like in the future. You must consider all the people involved, artists, engineers, support people, truck drivers, retail stores, marketing, etc. Now it wouldn't be fair to make you think this up by yourself or overnight. Let's say you have the weekend to think about it, post on Monday morning. Get together with TheGathering or whoever else you want to pull in and then let Steve and myself have a day or two to shoot holes in your bill. Hard facts now, statistics, usage, revenues, etc. Fair enough?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I would love to help out on this exercise. I think that there have been many who would like to help you design the bill. Seeing that the majority of people can see it through your eyes, it should almost be a snap for you to do.

On a side note. It has been stated that the government should do what the majority of people want. I believe that the government should more so protect the rights of those that are in the minority. Just because there are fewer people, should they become trod on as the majority marches over them? If so, where would we be today?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Exactly where we are? O_o



Also, I know that there are some serious legality issues you guys have been debating, but haven't we forgotten all about the RIAA and their methods?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I am still waiting for some info on their methods and the evidence of their wrong doing.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Did you not read the hyperlinked accounts of the methods of the RIAA earlier in the thread? We brought those up in accusation that the RIAA was acting tyrannical and out of favor for the good of the people.

Do you agree or disagree with our accusation based off those cases?

Here they are collected for reference:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...sues_the_dead/
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...r-summary.html

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

I do not claim to speak for everyone outside "...(my) own little world..." as you put it, because it is impossible for me to represent the opinions of those I've never met. You are attacking the validity of my opinion because of my choice in friends or the people that I have communicated with. You imply that my friends are thieves, and that I'm an immoral criminal. You imply that "my own little world" is small and irrelevant, and that any arguments that I make are invalid, simply because my opinion differs from your own (which you assume is the majority's).

You see the world differently than I do, you draw different conclusions, because you have had different challenges and experiences. This does not make others "wrong" simply because they have reached a different conclusion. You cannot claim that your world, and the conclusions you draw from it are any more valid than the conclusions I draw from my "own little world".

This argument is ad hominim.

I would sincerely ask again that we refrain from using it debate, as it is quite rude, uncivil, and inflammatory.


From the things I have seen, I claim that a majority of the people disagree with these laws, you claim otherwise. Back it up with facts if you want, but don't insult me by telling me how "that's just the world works, get used to it." Your entire argument rests upon this logical fallacy, that others are wrong because they disagree. I'll consider responding to your challenge when we can debate facts and not attack others for their opinions.

-Chris

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Here's an interesting article again that Talps linked me to:

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

After reading ALL of the articles I still cannot judge. When I read them I see one side of the story and usually a biased one. One written by someone caught with illegal software, one written by a freedom of technology group and the last one by some lawyers that are trying to get rich suing the rich. Never did I see any of the evidence on whether there was just cause or not.

Conclusion is that I still cannot make an educated judgment for or against the RIAA based on what I have read.

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Chris,
You have read entirely too much into my response. I pointed out that your statement about the vast majority is inaccurate. You do not and cannot personally know millions of people. Thus you cannot know that the "majority" is copying this material. You cannot claim the majority without backing up your claim. This is a two way street after all. I think you will find that the "majority" of people in this country do not listen to CDs on a regular basis (say more than once a week) but the defined demographic in which you fit is skewed the other way. The 18-25 year old is likely listening to recorded music in one form or another several times a week if not everyday. I merely pointed out that in your personal experience, many or most of the people you know who listen to recorded music are listening to selections they have copied, downloaded, or transferred. Is that not an accurate statement? I am not implying you are immoral or that you and your friends are thieves. I can only react to your statements as they reflect on current copyright law. This is the deduction...IF you copy music without the permission of the artist, recording company, publisher or significant other who holds rights to the property AND if there is a law naming these acts as illegal THEN the person who perpetrates these acts is acting in an illegal manner.
I never made the statement that others are wrong because they disagree. Disagreement and dissent is what is required of a democratic society if that society is to prosper and provide for it's citizens. What I did point out and what I believe is that illegal practices performed by a large number of people are still illegal. There is no way to change that without a change in the laws. I am sorry to be so forceful in this argument, but I work in this business. I know people who make recordings, use recordings legally and provide for their families using the gains from their activities. I know of people who have lost their jobs in the recording industry, their livelihood and their life savings when the business they were in failed. I like recorded music, the radio station that is part of the complex I maintain, has perhaps the largest library of classical music in the country. This business is complex and artist driven. Without income the artist cannot survive and without the artist there is no music, no recordings, no distribution, no listening, no enjoyment.
Lastly, by definition this debate is not 'ad hominum' since it is not everyone piling on you and it is definitely not strictly you and I debating in a public forum. It is most certainly not "this is illegal because Chris says it is legal." I have answered and countered each statement from many posters here and often with facts or reports from reputable sources. What remains is the challenge I put forth, do you wish to author/coauthor a pseudo bill that might make it legal to copy recorded music while still protecting the intellectual property of artists?

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

***

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

Has anyone thought about Als proposal?

In this weeks news, in our neighborhood, There have been charges laid against a bootlegger of DVD's. There were over 200,000 DVD's seized.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ds-051126.html

Re: RIAA or no RIAA?
 

How is wiping one's hard drive (when court ordered to hand it over) any different than Enron executives destroying document after document after document when their company collapsed?