Is there any way we can destroy the RIAA?

[compuwiz1]

Weenies who steal copyrighted material, then when caught, want to destroy the RIAA? Oh, grow up! You kids need a hard bum rappin!!! :Q

Whatever happened to the days when a parent could blister an obnoxious ass?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Weenies who steal copyrighted material, then when caught, want to destroy the RIAA? Oh, grow up! You kids need a hard bum rappin!!! :Q

Whatever happened to the days when a parent could blister an obnoxious ass?

So it's ok that the penalties for theft of intellectual property in the digital realm are significantly more severe than say the theft of a physical representation of the intellectual propery (e.g, shopflifting a CD)?

 

[compuwiz1]

If you keep stealing the money from the artists, pretty soon there will be no more artists. I really don't rellish the thought of my only source of music coming from some overblown bullhorns from AT.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it. Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better. Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: mugs
I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

Frankly, while their business model is changing, their attitude is not. They're still the same greedy SOBs that steal everything from the artists while lining their pockets.

That said, I don't advocate theft of music. The fact that you dislike the way they do business doesn't give you a legal right to resort to theft. Your option is to boycott and leave it at that.

With the plethora of legal download sources out there now, there is simply no excuse for stealing music. "Sticking it to the man" is not a good excuse.

If you really want to "Stick it to the man" go ahead and purchase legal music from non-RIAA sanctioned and controlled artists (of which the ranks are growing by leaps and bounds). I believe an independent artist this year was able to break 500,000 album sales with no label and no RIAA "assistance". Supporting these mavericks will be the ultimate downfall of "big music".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: mugs
I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

Frankly, while their business model is changing, their attitude is not. They're still the same greedy SOBs that steal everything from the artists while lining their pockets.

Last I looked, no one was forcing artists to sign contracts... Unless Tony Soprano started working for the record companies...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Amused
Last I looked, no one was forcing artists to sign contracts... Unless Tony Soprano started working for the record companies...

No, and I never said they were

I still maintain that independent, label-free artists will be the downfall of the industry. Time will tell.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

 

[Deeko]

Man reading this stuff....you guys are morons.

The truth of the matter is, you want free music. You can sit here and sugarcoat it and say whatever you want, but you really just want free music. Hey, so do I, I'm not gonna say I've never downloaded a song, but I also don't act like what I'm doing is right and the people I'm stealing from have no right to be mad at me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

Your argument that making your music freely available on the internet is not distributing it is inane at best, lame at worst. Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

And yes, you are robbing the IP owner of their profits by freely mass distributing their music.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

Your argument that making your music freely available on the internet is not distributing it is inane at best, lame at worst. Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

I think you mean lame at best, inane at worst. A lame argment is certainly preferable to an inane agument.

As a matter of fact, I do believe I am morally entitled to store my entire music collection wherever the fvck I see fit. Including on-line. If others happen to stumble across my cache of music, then that's not my problem. I am not paid by the RIAA to enforce copy right law, and I certainly didn't sign papers guaranteeing I would store the music I have purchased in a location or manner approved by others.

Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, you are robbing the IP owner of their profits by freely mass distributing their music.

You haven't established that I am 'distributing' music by storing it in a location open to the public, and by the way it isn't my job to preserve the revenue streams of musical artists.

 

[PingSpike]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I suspect some one has suggested boycott.

The problem with that is, I can't boycott something I would never buy in the first place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

Your argument that making your music freely available on the internet is not distributing it is inane at best, lame at worst. Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

I think you mean lame at best, inane at worst. A lame argment is certainly preferable to an inane agument.

As a matter of fact, I do believe I am morally entitled to store my entire music collection wherever the fvck I see fit. Including on-line. If others happen to stumble across my cache of music, then that's not my problem. I am not paid by the RIAA to enforce copy right law, and I certainly didn't sign papers guaranteeing I would store the music I have purchased in a location or manner approved by others.

Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, you are robbing the IP owner of their profits by freely mass distributing their music.

You haven't established that I am 'distributing' music by storing it in a location open to the public, and by the way it isn't my job to preserve the revenue streams of musical artists.

This issue here is intent. You know damn well that by storing your music in the shared folder of a file sharing program, it will be open to the entire world to download for free and violate copyright law. Doing so shows an intent to distribute.

Inane, lame, call it what you want but your argument sucks.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

Did you see what they're trying to do to steve jobs and his itunes? They're trying to force him to charge more than 99c which I think is already too high for a goddamn copy protection low quality music file...

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: mugs
I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

Frankly, while their business model is changing, their attitude is not. They're still the same greedy SOBs that steal everything from the artists while lining their pockets.

That said, I don't advocate theft of music. The fact that you dislike the way they do business doesn't give you a legal right to resort to theft. Your option is to boycott and leave it at that.

With the plethora of legal download sources out there now, there is simply no excuse for stealing music. "Sticking it to the man" is not a good excuse.

If you really want to "Stick it to the man" go ahead and purchase legal music from non-RIAA sanctioned and controlled artists (of which the ranks are growing by leaps and bounds). I believe an independent artist this year was able to break 500,000 album sales with no label and no RIAA "assistance". Supporting these mavericks will be the ultimate downfall of "big music".

Hey, not everybody wants a low quality copy protection music file that will play only on your computer...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

Did you see what they're trying to do to steve jobs and his itunes? They're trying to force him to charge more than 99c which I think is already too high for a goddamn copy protection low quality music file...

They have a right to charge whatever they want for their product. They also have a right to negotiate contracts with retailers.

Funny how Jobs is a hero for demanding a price point from their suppliers and the RIAA is evil for wanting to charge what they want... yet Walmart is the devil for doing the very same thing Jobs is doing, and their suppliers are suffering saints.

The hypocrisy among the entitlement/anti-capitalist crowd is amazing.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Amused
The most absurd this here is that anyone would think they need to destroy them. As if you're entitled to music or something.

The issue here has nothing to do with entitlement (well, I'm sure some feel they are entitled to it, but that's another discussion).

People won't accept being gouged to pay for music anymore. The piracy is just a byproduct of this (IMHO).

I think the record companies need to accept that they made a killing in a market that simply does not exist in the same form anymore. They need new methods of generating revenue and they need to accept that they simply will not make the kind of money they used to.

How are they gouging? Music is not a necessity. It is their product and they can charge what ever the fsck they want for it. Who are you to say what their price should be? If you don't like their prices, your option is a simple one, and only one: Don't buy their product.

But that's not the issue, is it? People don't like the RIAA because the RIAA is actively pursuing people who STEAL their product. This really isn't an issue of price. It's an issue of morality and theft. People cloak it in all sorts of inane arguments, but in the end, that's all it boils down to.

Maybe gouging is the wrong word, but I feel like I'm being gouged when I need to pay $10-15 for a CD. I just don't feel that the cost associated with creating the material and distributing, marketing, etc, justifies the price they charge.

I'm all for capitalism, but I also don't like it when I feel people are making too much money. I feel the music companies make too much money, so I don't buy music (nor steal it).

The only problem I have with the RIAA is the lawsuits they come up with. If a kid downloads a song, give him a fine for the cost of the song plus some penalty (say $50 - which might be the the cost to the company for paying their employee to issue the fine).

That seems reasonable to me. I feel that anyone who bitches about the company doing something wrong is an idiot. The RIAA is in the right, but they are shooting themselves in the foot with the method they've chosen to try to correct the problem. I feel they are going to lose out on a lot if they keep approaching things the way they are.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused
Last I looked, no one was forcing artists to sign contracts... Unless Tony Soprano started working for the record companies...

No, they're not forced... they only have to sign with a major label if they want to get air play, have their CDs sold in major retail outlets, and play in big venues. And then they get a whopping ten cents per $10-20 CD, but still have to foot the cost of recording the album, touring, and making videos.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

While I don't think they are gouging, I do believe that they are useing government as a crutch to prop up their business model.

I really wish people would quit going on about their "business model" unless you're willing to elaborate on wtf you mean. Until then you're just parrotting what you've heard dozens of other people say. Their "business model" has changed quite a bit in the last few years - you can buy MP3s online a track at a time for a VERY reasonable price. You can use a monthly fee service like Napster - which on its face seems like a raw deal since you don't get to keep the music when you cancel, but on the other hand for the price of ONE CD per month you can keep up with ALL of the latest music. It's hard to swallow because it's an entirely different approach. So what part of their "business model" do you people have a problem with? The fact that they're actually trying to sell music for a profit?

My issue is that the penalties associated with the violation of their intellectual property seem (to me) to be very much out of line with previous legal standards, and community expectations in general. I'd expect the downloading of music to attract a penalty that is similar in severity to say the shoplifting of the same music. But that isn't the case, "theft" in the digital realm is attracting penalties that appear (to me) to be absurdly harsh.

The problem with your point is, they are not going after people who merely download, but those who distribute/allow unlimited number of others to download the same material. In other words, file sharers.

If I leave my CD collection out on the porch, allowing passers by to pick it up, listen to it, record it, as they see fit - is that illegal?

If you allow an unlimited number of people to have copies of the IP, you are distributing it.

I don't agree. In my view, I am not 'distributing' my music by storing it on the porch. Actually, I'm not doing anything at all other than storing my music in a particular location that *I* have chosen. Do you believe that when I purchase intellectual property, then I am legally bound to store that IP in a location where no one other than myself may access it?

Originally posted by: Amused
Just because you distribute it for free doesn't make it any better.

You haven't convincingly established that I am 'distributing' anything. I'd like some more argument from you on this point.

Originally posted by: Amused
Free, or not, you are robbing the IP owners of their right to make a profit on thier IP.

Actually, their right to make a profit on the IP remains intact. I think what you meant to say was their chances of making a living on their IP are reduced.

Your argument that making your music freely available on the internet is not distributing it is inane at best, lame at worst. Do you honestly believe what you are saying?

I think you mean lame at best, inane at worst. A lame argment is certainly preferable to an inane agument.

As a matter of fact, I do believe I am morally entitled to store my entire music collection wherever the fvck I see fit. Including on-line. If others happen to stumble across my cache of music, then that's not my problem. I am not paid by the RIAA to enforce copy right law, and I certainly didn't sign papers guaranteeing I would store the music I have purchased in a location or manner approved by others.

Originally posted by: Amused
And yes, you are robbing the IP owner of their profits by freely mass distributing their music.

You haven't established that I am 'distributing' music by storing it in a location open to the public, and by the way it isn't my job to preserve the revenue streams of musical artists.

This issue here is intent.

What is an issue to me, is your (or the riaa's) insistence that I store my music in a location that is pleasing to you. Your anti-democratic, pro-fascist position on this matter is most alarming.

Originally posted by: Amused
You know damn well that by storing your music in the shared folder of a file sharing program, it will be open to the entire world to download for free

Of course I know that. That is the point of storing my music in a location where other's may access it. I want others to be able to access it.

Originally posted by: Amused
and violate copyright law. Doing so shows an intent to distribute.

Lol, music is not drugs, there is no crime of distributing music.

You need to explain why you think the riaa has a moral right to dictate the location or manner in which I store the music I have purchased.

Originally posted by: Amused
Inane, lame, call it what you want but your argument sucks.

I'd be interested to see you paraphrase 'my argument'. It seems to me you don't comprehend much of what I am saying.

 

[0roo0roo]

legislation to give musicians more rights over their ownership of their music. not gonna happen though


bastards killed sacd/dvda with their overzealous copy protection. now we are left with the choices of inferior digital downloads of technically obsolete cds to buy. gee thanks riaa.

 

[EKKC]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
legislation to give musicians more rights over their ownership of their music. not gonna happen though


bastards killed sacd/dvda with their overzealous copy protection. now we are left with the choices of inferior digital downloads of technically obsolete cds to buy. gee thanks riaa.

that is so true. they cant embrace new technologies. DVD-audio for one like you said. and they wont do what apple is doing. sell your songs for 50 cents a piece and if your artists actually have any talent, you'll make a decent profit.

CDs been out for 20 years. Time to move on you greedy bitches.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
What is an issue to me, is your (or the riaa's) insistence that I store my music in a location that is pleasing to you. Your anti-democratic, pro-fascist position on this matter is most alarming.

No, they're not. Your analogy to storing your music on the porch is terrible. You're STORING your music on your computer, you're not storing it on a P2P network. By sharing it with P2P programs you're inviting people to copy it from you. It's cut and dry. There's no OTHER reason to share it (note I did not say store it, storage has nothing to do with this) than to allow others to copy it. If you want to use your porch analogy, this is what it is analogous to - making 100 copies of your CDs and putting them on the porch with a sign on them with a sign that says "free, take as many as you want." Like it or not, you can't do that.

 

[her209]

Should I have the right to a CD if I'm not satisfied with it?