RIAA or no RIAA?

[Koko Ed]

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

[LordTalps]

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.

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 not rocket science. Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet. For the artists, my $@#$@#$@#... I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection." - David Draiman

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).

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

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

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.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

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.

[thegathering]

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

[LordTalps]

Originally Posted by thegathering

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

19-1

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

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by LordTalps

19-1

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

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.

[Steve W]

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.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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?

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?

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Mike

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?

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?

[thegathering]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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?

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?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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?

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.

[Steve W]

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.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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.

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.