RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: syberscott
You claim that piracy has not hurt record sales. Then you say that you don't buy cd's anymore because of copyright protection. Why do you think the copyright protection is there? Because people steal the music. See the circle?

It doesn't matter how many excuses there are or how many people rationalize it; it's still wrong and illegal to steal music, period.

Piracy does not hurt sales. Copyprotection can hurt sales because people do not want to buy crippled discs. I don't care what their reasons are for doing it, all I know that:

1. The disc I buy may not work on my hardware
2. I'm being prevented to listen to the music I buy using the means of my choosing (my choice is to rip that music on my HD and convert it to mp3's. All that is perfectly legal and proctected under fair-use laws)
3. I'm being sold discs that do not meet the requirements to be called "CD" or "compact disc"
4. The discs I'm being sold are more error-prone and they have reduced longevity due to artificial error planted in them

And downloading music from the net is not stealing. Get your facts straight

 

[syberscott]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
steal
to take and carry away without right or permission

Just because you are taking something electronically doesn't mean it's not stealing.

 

[syberscott]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: syberscott
You claim that piracy has not hurt record sales. Then you say that you don't buy cd's anymore because of copyright protection. Why do you think the copyright protection is there? Because people steal the music. See the circle?

It doesn't matter how many excuses there are or how many people rationalize it; it's still wrong and illegal to steal music, period.

Piracy does not hurt sales. Copyprotection can hurt sales because people do not want to buy crippled discs. I don't care what their reasons are for doing it, all I know that:

1. The disc I buy may not work on my hardware
2. I'm being prevented to listen to the music I buy using the means of my choosing (my choice is to rip that music on my HD and convert it to mp3's. All that is perfectly legal and proctected under fair-use laws)
3. I'm being sold discs that do not meet the requirements to be called "CD" or "compact disc"
4. The discs I'm being sold are more error-prone and they have reduced longevity due to artificial error planted in them

And downloading music from the net is not stealing. Get your facts straight

All your reasons are valid for not wanting to buy a right protected disk. But please think about why they are right protected in the first place.

*EDIT spelling

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: syberscott
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
steal
to take and carry away without right or permission

Just because you are taking something electronically doesn't mean it's not stealing.

If I go to record-shop and shoplift a CD, I'm stealing (I'm "carrying away without permission"). If I download a song from the net, I'm NOT stealing, I'm committing a copyright infringment. Those two are two entirely different things. In one case I physically take a product, denying the seller a sale. In the latter case I'm not denying a sale since I'm not removing the product from the seller. The seller still has the product to sell.

Would I be stealing your car if I could make an identical copy of it by snapping my fingers and then taking that copy for myself? No I would not. you would still have your car. Hell, you propably wouldn't even notice if I made a copy of your car.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: syberscott
All your reasons are valid for not wanting to buy a right protected disk. But please think about why they are right protected in the first place.

*EDIT spelling

Why are they doing it? Because they think it will boost sales. Because they want to control the method of listening to music (by removing the ability to convert them to mp3's). If mp3's get more popular as a distribution-method, they will lose their stranglehold on the industry. They would no longer control the distribution-channel (CD's), and they do not want that to happen

And besides, copyprotection does NOT stop the real pirates, only ones who suffer from them are the ordinary music-buyers. Real pirates have other means of copying the music.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

The irony is people would stop stealing if something decent was put out and the price was lowered to a reasonable level.

No the true irony is that they have everyone discussing this on their terms. Once again copyright infringment is not "stealing music". As long as people refuse to look at the longterm history of the balancing of fair use rights and media conglomerates continual assaults on them garbage like the DMCA will continue to become the law of the land. This fight has been going on since the introduction of tape recorders for the masses. The RIAA/MPAA could live with their defeats in the cassette and VCR realm by assuring themselves that at best infringers were left with an inferior copy. They learned from those fights and have armed themselves for this one by buying politicians from both parties to legislate in their favor.

 

[syberscott]

Why can't you people just realize that stealing music (copyright infringement, whatever) is wrong and illegal. All of your reasons and justifications doesn't make it right.

Sigh.....hell in a handbasket.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
1. Downloading mp3's from the net is not stealing

jigga what? what do you call using a product without paying a price that the seller agrees to?

Downloading mp3's is not stealing, it's copyright-infringment. If I went to record-shop, and shoplifted a CD, I would be stealing. But downloading songs from the net is not stealing.

whatever makes you feel better man

2. Record-companies have been found guilty of price-fixing

thats not pertinent

It shows that the record-companies themselves are to blame for the drop in sales of CD's

the reasons for decline in sales have nothing do to with whether your infringing on copyright/stealing whatever you want to call it is legal or not

3. Cost of CD's has gone up faster than inflation

actually CD prices are damn near the same as they were 18 years ago when CDs came out

Not really, I have seen statistics that show that prices have gone up considerably. Which is trange, when you consider the following:

1. When CD's were released, they were a hi-end product with considerable price-premium when compared to the more common alternatives (cassettes and LP's). Today, they are the most common media for music, and they cosat less to produce, yet the price has not dropped. Their price was justified when they were considerably better and more expensive to manufacture than their cheaper alternatives. But that is no longer the case.

2. When CD's were released, their production numbers were limited and therefore unit-price was high. Not so today. As volumes increase, prices should come down. That has not happened

read this

actually, yes, they are about the same prices or even less than when they came out 18 years ago. selecting a link which shows prices 12 years ago does not invalidate what i've said. heck, you could say that, hey, CD prices between 1991 and 2001 went up all of 12.5%. from the federal reserve i found that inflation from 1991 to 2001 averaged 3%, while averaging the rate of CD price increases, from your link, over that same period of time gets 1% per year rate! so guess what?!? CD prices were increasing lower than the rate of inflation over the time period you linked!

4. CD's are ridiculously overpriced. Hell, soundtrack of movie costs almost as much as the DVD of the movie!

thats not pertinent. by that logic we should all go steal mercedes.

It shows that CD's are overpriced when compared to what they offer. People are unwilling to pay that much for CD's, therefore sales are dropping. Mercedes offers things that cheaper alternatives do not (brand among others), CD's do not.

many people may be unwilling but if they're not willing then they are not allowed to have the product. again, whether CDs are a bargain vis-a-vis other products is not material to the discussion of whether you can steal/copyright-infringe music!

5. There is no real evidence that mp3's or "piracy" is hurting record-sales.

thats not pertinent either

it shows that RIAA's struggle against "pirates" might be 100% pointless, if reasons for declining sales are elsewhere. If RIAA wants to find the reason for falling sales, I suggest that they look at the mirror

maybe they should but thats not justification for you going and stealing/copyright-infringing/whatever you want to call it to make yourself feel better when you look in the mirror.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix<bractually, yes, they are about the same prices or even less than when they came out 18 years ago.

18 years ago CD's were hi-end niche-product with large-price-premium. Not anymore. The price should have come down considerably. It hasn't. It has gone up.

many people may be unwilling but if they're not willing then they are not allowed to have the product.

Of course, and that's why sales of CD's are falling since people are unwilling to buy them.

again, whether CDs are a bargain vis-a-vis other products is not material to the discussion of whether you can steal/copyright-infringe music!

Have I said that you can "steal" music? NO I HAVE NOT! All I have said is that people feel that price of CD's don't reflect the value of the product, therefore they are unwilling to buy them.

maybe they should but thats not justification for you going and stealing/copyright-infringing/whatever you want to call it to make yourself feel better when you look in the mirror.

Where have I said that I "steal" music? Where have I urged people to do so? All I have said is that people don't buy CD's because they are overpriced and because they have other uses for their money. And some people refuse to buy CD's because of copyprotection. That is all I have said. I have NOT said "because RIAA sucks you have the right to pirate music!". Please, stop putting words in to my mouth.

EDIT: That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep if RIAA went bust due to piracy. They have handled the situation wrong, they have bullied their customers, they have used questionable methods in protecting their stranglehold on the industry.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: syberscott
Why can't you people just realize that stealing music (copyright infringement, whatever) is wrong and illegal. All of your reasons and justifications doesn't make it right.

Sigh.....hell in a handbasket.

Sure it is wrong and illegal, has anyone claimed otherwise? What we are disputing is the RIAA party-line that it's "stealing", when the fact is that it's not.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Arr, matey. This thread gives me a shiverin feelin in me timbers.

- M4H

That''s:


HAAAARRRRR!!

still limp

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix<bractually, yes, they are about the same prices or even less than when they came out 18 years ago.

18 years ago CD's were hi-end niche-product with large-price-premium. Not anymore. The price should have come down considerably. It hasn't. It has gone up.

good, don't reply to my previous comment refuting this whole portion of your argument

many people may be unwilling but if they're not willing then they are not allowed to have the product.

Of course, and that's why sales of CD's are falling since people are unwilling to buy them.

again, whether CDs are a bargain vis-a-vis other products is not material to the discussion of whether you can steal/copyright-infringe music!

Have I said that you can "steal" music? NO I HAVE NOT! All I have said is that people feel that price of CD's don't reflect the value of the product, therefore they are unwilling to buy them.

maybe they should but thats not justification for you going and stealing/copyright-infringing/whatever you want to call it to make yourself feel better when you look in the mirror.

Where have I said that I "steal" music? Where have I urged people to do so? All I have said is that people don't buy CD's because they are overpriced and because they have other uses for their money. And some people refuse to buy CD's because of copyprotection. That is all I have said. I have NOT said "because RIAA sucks you have the right to pirate music!". Please, stop putting words in to my mouth.

EDIT: That said, I wouldn't lose any sleep if RIAA went bust due to piracy. They have handled the situation wrong, they have bullied their customers, they have used questionable methods in protecting their stranglehold on the industry.

your whole original post was in response to someone's suggestion that people stop stealing music (to get the RIAA to stop prosecuting them, presumably). if they're not going to pay the prices or negotiate for lower prices then they shouldn't have the music. end of story.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: syberscott
Why can't you people just realize that stealing music (copyright infringement, whatever) is wrong and illegal. All of your reasons and justifications doesn't make it right.

Sigh.....hell in a handbasket.

Sure it is wrong and illegal, has anyone claimed otherwise? What we are disputing is the RIAA party-line that it's "stealing", when the fact is that it's not.

semantics

you're still using the owner's stuff without their consent. i mean, i'm not using my golf clubs at the moment, why don't you take them and see if you can cram 18 holes in real quick, heck, i won't even notice they're gone!

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
He got caught, should we feel sorry for him? Maybe. Was he wrong? Yes.

He was running a search engine, very similar to google. What was he doing that was wrong? If anybody was at fault it was RPI for not regulating it's own network.

Here is a search engine to search our entire college network for files. Don't pirate though

Sorry, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing and he got busted for it. The RIAA are a bunch of money grubbing assholes who are ruining music from the inside out, but you cannot tell me you didn't expect some kind of fight. They shouldn't have taken his money but still, the whole "playing dumb" really just isn't going to fly in my book.

Didn't they also sieze his PC as part of the trial? If they found a few thousand dollars worth of pirated songs and movies on it, he really isn't as innocent as he's trying to make himself out to be.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: syberscott
Why can't you people just realize that stealing music (copyright infringement, whatever) is wrong and illegal. All of your reasons and justifications doesn't make it right.

Sigh.....hell in a handbasket.

Sure it is wrong and illegal, has anyone claimed otherwise? What we are disputing is the RIAA party-line that it's "stealing", when the fact is that it's not.

semantics

No, it's a legal FACT

you're still using the owner's stuff without their consent. i mean, i'm not using my golf clubs at the moment, why don't you take them and see if you can cram 18 holes in real quick, heck, i won't even notice they're gone!

More fitting comparison: I notice that you have nice set of golf-clubs. I magically create an identical copy of your clubs, and take that copy, leaving you with the original,

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
good, don't reply to my previous comment refuting this whole portion of your argument

What post? Fact is that the price of the prodcut should have come down. It hasn't. It was priced high back when it was hi-end product. It's not hi-end anymiore, yet the price did not come down.

your whole original post was in response to someone's suggestion that people stop stealing music (to get the RIAA to stop prosecuting them, presumably). if they're not going to pay the prices or negotiate for lower prices then they shouldn't have the music. end of story.

My original post was about how RIAA has handled the situation very, very badly and why people are unwilling to buy CD's, that's all. I fail to see how your above comment relates to that. I talked about falling sales of CD's and I listed some reasons for that (less money to spend, more good & services to spend that money on, high prices, copyprotection etc). Now you are ranting how "they shouldn't have the music". What does that have to do with anything????

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: syberscott
Why can't you people just realize that stealing music (copyright infringement, whatever) is wrong and illegal. All of your reasons and justifications doesn't make it right.

Sigh.....hell in a handbasket.

Sure it is wrong and illegal, has anyone claimed otherwise? What we are disputing is the RIAA party-line that it's "stealing", when the fact is that it's not.

semantics

No, it's a legal FACT

and legal trivialities boil down to sematics more than anything else.

and its legal fact that if you violate copyright you can be punished for it.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and legal trivialities boil down to sematics more than anything else.

It is not stealing. That is a fact. It would be stealing if I physically remove the actual CD from it's owner. Downloading music does not do that, the owner still has the original CD.

and its legal fact that if you violate copyright you can be punished for it.

Well whoop-de-fvcking-do, have I claimed otherwise?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
good, don't reply to my previous comment refuting this whole portion of your argument

What post? Fact is that the price of the prodcut should have come down. It hasn't. It was priced high back when it was hi-end product. It's not hi-end anymiore, yet the price did not come down.

this post:

actually, yes, they are about the same prices or even less than when they came out 18 years ago. selecting a link which shows prices 12 years ago does not invalidate what i've said. heck, you could say that, hey, CD prices between 1991 and 2001 went up all of 12.5%. from the federal reserve i found that inflation from 1991 to 2001 averaged 3%, while averaging the rate of CD price increases, from your link, over that same period of time gets 1% per year rate! so guess what?!? CD prices were increasing lower than the rate of inflation over the time period you linked!

in real terms the price of a CD did come down between 1991 and 2001 which is the time period you tried to show that CD prices went up. you can't compare nominal prices.

your whole original post was in response to someone's suggestion that people stop stealing music (to get the RIAA to stop prosecuting them, presumably). if they're not going to pay the prices or negotiate for lower prices then they shouldn't have the music. end of story.

My original post was about how RIAA has handled the situation very, very badly and why people are unwilling to buy CD's, that's all. I fail to see how your above comment relates to that. I talked about falling sales of CD's and I listed some reasons for that (less money to spend, more good & services to spend that money on, high prices, copyprotection etc). Now you are ranting how "they shouldn't have the music". What does that have to do with anything????

you fail to see? you were the one who quoted syberscott's post suggesting that the RIAA wouldn't be going after people if they weren't "stealing music."

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and legal trivialities boil down to sematics more than anything else.

It is not stealing. That is a fact. It would be stealing if I physically remove the actual CD from it's owner. Downloading music does not do that, the owner still has the original CD.

and its legal fact that if you violate copyright you can be punished for it.

Well whoop-de-fvcking-do, have I claimed otherwise?

actually, no, see, the owner is the guy that owns the copyright on the song, and if he says that everyone who takes a listen has to pay him according to his rate stucture, and you then take a listen without paying him, then you are depriving him of the $0.05 or whatever that you owe him.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
in real terms the price of a CD did come down between 1991 and 2001 which is the time period you tried to show that CD prices went up. you can't compare nominal prices.

Do you have any links to support your claims?

you fail to see? you were the one who quoted syberscott's post suggesting that the RIAA wouldn't be going after people if they weren't "stealing music."

My post was about reasons for falling CD-sales and how downloading music was not "stealing". RIAA claims that falling CD-sales are due to piracy, I said that that is not the case. Then you started your "they shouldn't have the music", when I merely listed reasons why sales of CD's have been dropping. I did not say that people should break the law.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
in real terms the price of a CD did come down between 1991 and 2001 which is the time period you tried to show that CD prices went up. you can't compare nominal prices.

Do you have any links to support your claims?

READ MY DAMNED POST!
EDIT: it was approximately 2 hours ago if that helps

you fail to see? you were the one who quoted syberscott's post suggesting that the RIAA wouldn't be going after people if they weren't "stealing music."

My post was about reasons for falling CD-sales and how downloading music was not "stealing". RIAA claims that falling CD-sales are due to piracy, I said that that is not the case. Then you started your "they shouldn't have the music", when I merely listed reasons why sales of CD's have been dropping. I did not say that people should break the law.

thats not the post you responded to, so your original was not presented in that context.

 

[Nemesis77]

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
READ MY DAMNED POST!
EDIT: it was approximately 2 hours ago if that helps

I meant: do you have links supporting your claims that prices of CD's have been falling?

thats not the post you responded to, so your original was not presented in that context.

Well, my original post was about 200MB avi-file I have on my HD, but I assume that's not the post you are talking about. My second post was about the reasons why sales of CD's have been falling and how RIAA shares some of the blame. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Link 1

Link 2

link 1:

The average price of today's CD's however is up to $19.99.

where the hell is he getting his info from? oh, good, he doesn't supply a link that maybe has some actual statistics. going from personal experience browsing the CD section at best buy i deem hes full of crap.

link 2:

CD prices have continued to rise to a now unbelievable $16.98 list price (soon to be $17.98!)

again, someone that doesn't actually post where their info is from, and again, from personal experience i'll say they're full of crap as well.