Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44

Thread: r.i.a.a

  1. #26
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Intellectual property doesn't need a physical form whereas physical property does.
    The spoken word takes physical form-vibrations and sound waves. An idea takes physical form in electrical energy of the brain. If electrical energy in the brain is not a physical form, then neither is electricity from the electric company.

    Your conception of history seems to be to your convenience. You are willing to dismiss the US Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Berne convention signed by half the countries in the world. The half that have not signed copyrght agreements are almost all poor (wonder why?). You repeateddly say copyrights are new. So are woman suffrage and prohibitions against slavery and human rights. Should we throw them out too cause they are not convenient?

  2. #27
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104148#msg1041 48 date=1083470305
    Intellectual property doesn't need a physical form whereas physical property does.
    The spoken word takes physical form-vibrations and sound waves. An idea takes physical form in electrical energy of the brain. If electrical energy in the brain is not a physical form, then neither is electricity from the electric company.
    What? You've got to be kidding. Monty, you need to learn when you've been beaten and concede defeat ... or at least shut up and stay quiet. The above is just plain stupidity.

    But on the off-chance that you really think the above is correct...

    As for your brain electricity, that is also physical property and does exist in a physical form but it is yours and not a single government in the world would give another the rights to another person's brain electricity. To say nothing about such brain electricity generated by the reading of an idea. And an idea is not the brain electricity. An idea can be replicated indefinitely without the need of brain electricity.

    As for the electricity of a power plant, it too is a physical property. Crack open a natural science textbook (any 2nd grade textbook should do) and read up on what electricity is.

    Your conception of history seems to be to your convenience. You are willing to dismiss the US Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Berne convention signed by half the countries in the world.
    Calling a law, government body, or treaty into question doesn't necessarily mean dismissing it. And knowing the history of them helps understand how and why they were created and may help one see their flaws. Lastly, I have never thought anyone or anything created by another was perfect and couldn't stand improvement.

    The half that have not signed copyrght agreements are almost all poor (wonder why?).
    Oh by sweet Melonie's tits, you're precious. The Berne Convention was written in 1886. The USA didn't sign it until 1988!!! Over a HUNDRED years after it was signed by the European nations. Hmmm. I wonder why? :

    Also, most countries that haven't yet signed it have a different cultural concepts about intellectual property rights. Additionally, many of them are former oppressed colonies of the nations that wrote up the Berne Convention and have a history that has taught them not to trust those nations. Still others have their own copyright laws and are merely in significant disagreement with the Berne Convention. Some actually have far stricter copyright laws than the Berne Convention.

    You repeateddly say copyrights are new. So are woman suffrage and prohibitions against slavery and human rights. Should we throw them out too cause they are not convenient?
    They're not convenient??? :huh: Monty, put down the joint, open the window, and get some fresh air in there.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  3. #28
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Pumpkin Pie,

    Your trollishness makes this discussion of no future value.
    1. You seem to imply that the because the Berne Convention was not adopted by the US until 1988 that the US did not believe in copyrights until 1988. The US was a memeber of a competing agreement the Universal Copyright Convention since 1954. (think Betamax vs VHS).
    2. The technology was such that stealing intellectual property was a complex thing to do that was usually not worth the effort. (try recording a vinyl record, or song off an am radio on a 1940's recorder)
    3. The US had an extremely isolationist disposition from the 1910's to the 1940's and was not big on international agreements. (See the League of Nations, and pre-WW I arguements).
    4. Items subject to a copyright had a physical form which was copyrighted- every song was recorded. every movie recorded, every book printed. The mere fact that that was translated to a sequence of 1's and 0's does not alter that fact, it just makes it easier to steal it.
    5. You are entitled to whistle any tune you want inside your head. You are entitled to think about any movie you want. You are allowed to paraphrase any argument you want in any forum. But if you use an exact reproduction or very close approximation and claim it as your own, you are a plagiarist, or thief IMHO.
    6. Your ad hominum personal attacks are pompous, tedious, childish, and trollish as expressed in the usage of "stupidity" and suggestions that an argument with which you disagree is drug induced. Your apparent attitude is that "I am Scott Jenson and I did a public access webcast so I am the only opinion that matters". (apologies if I mispelled your name) You apparently do not wish to discuss, you want to enforce your own delusions of superiority.

    From my perspective, this thread is closed.

  4. #29
    Veteran Member darkness's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    the copy machines in library's should be illeagel then because we are copying something that was already copywritten,or recording music off the radio should be illegal too then,right? i mean if we record off the radio that is the exact same thing as downloading music off the internet,so does that mean the riaa should come and arrest me?the riaa is just pissed because they don't control distribution anymore...think about it.you no longer have to sign with the record company to get your music heard.we're not ripping off the artists.true fact:when you buy a major label cd for 20.00$ almost none of your money goes to musicians,bands get .80cents or less and many times nothing at all.almost all the music you hear on the radio is on a major label,but there are better ways to support these musicans like going to a concert.

  5. #30
    God/dess lestat1's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    NY Capital District
    Posts
    3,775
    Thanks
    758
    Thanked 1,943 Times in 696 Posts
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by darkness link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104279#msg1042 79 date=1083517474
    the copy machines in library's should be illeagel then because we are copying something that was already copywritten,or recording music off the radio should be illegal too then,right? i mean if we record off the radio that is the exact same thing as downloading music off the internet,so does that mean the riaa should come and arrest me?the riaa is just pissed because they don't control distribution anymore...think about it.you no longer have to sign with the record company to get your music heard.we're not ripping off the artists.true fact:when you buy a major label cd for 20.00$ almost none of your money goes to musicians,bands get .80cents or less and many times nothing at all.almost all the music you hear on the radio is on a major label,but there are better ways to support these musicans like going to a concert.
    Actually what you do with the library copy machine can be illegal. So is recording the song off the radio. There are 4 criteria under U.S. copyright law to determine what may be considered "fair use" or acceptable copying in small amounts and for non-commerical use, but I suspect you're not interested in reading them.
    Quote Originally Posted by _Avery_ View Post
    omg, why is it so huge?!! lol lol

  6. #31
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridgette link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg103916#msg1039 16 date=1083440381
    Do y'all know that every blank CDR you buy profits the entertainment industry? It's not like they're not getting something out of us 'thieves' who download and burn our own CDs!
    If I'm correct, in the United States the entertainment industry only gets a royalty cut from the sales of the CD-R's explicitly labeled for "audio" or "music" (the ones used in stand alone CD recorders), not from the sales regular data CD-R's that you can burn to audio format in your computer's CD burner. In Canada and several European countries, its a different story entirely.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  7. #32
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Yeah that's what I meant. Since we in the US seem to be the only ones getting targeted for lawsuits, I'm not really concerned about whether the music industry in other countries get a cut of CDR sales. Seems folks in other countries aren't having the problems we are with this, but then aren't we Americans known for our ridiculous lawsuits?

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

  8. #33
    Member Lemuel's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    I'm new here, but I'm going to post my two cents here anyway.

    First of all, you're definately stealing. But, who really cares? I think we all do things that we know are illegal and just do it anyway. Speeding, sampling a chocolate in the bulk food section, whatever it is. Hell, I read recently that oral sex is illegal in over half of the states in the US, I know it is in mine because I checked the lawbooks.

    If I were you, I would be more concerned about other risks involved in file sharing. Most file sharing programs (limewire, kazaam (sp?) etc.) make it possible for anybody on the file sharing network to get a great deal of information about you and your network connection. Having this information gives any decent hacker or scripter total access to your sytstem and all of the files on it. You should be especially wary if you use your computer for any sort of online banking or storage of any access/security codes. Most home computers have no protection whatsoever against hackers, coders, or even just scriptgeeks who just want to try out their latest hack script.

    Your best bet is to get in contact with somebody who belongs to a file sharing group that they trust (RHIANNON (sp?) for example) and ask to be included in their group.

  9. #34
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104265#msg1042 65 date=1083515979
    Pumpkin Pie,

    Your trollishness makes this discussion of no future value.
    Calling a spade a spade isn't being a troll. Making a statement simply to cause a flamewar without believing one's own statement is being a troll.

    1. You seem to imply that the because the Berne Convention was not adopted by the US until 1988 that the US did not believe in copyrights until 1988. The US was a memeber of a competing agreement the Universal Copyright Convention since 1954. (think Betamax vs VHS).
    Don't try to put words I didn't say into my mouth, Monty. That's a very immature debate tactic ... and a dumb one since it can be so easily proven wrong. Here's what you said and here's my reply to your statement:

    The half that have not signed copyrght agreements are almost all poor (wonder why?).
    Oh by sweet Melonie's tits, you're precious. The Berne Convention was written in 1886. The USA didn't sign it until 1988!!! Over a HUNDRED years after it was signed by the European nations. Hmmm. I wonder why?
    In my reply to your statement, did I state that the US didn't believe in copyrights by not signing the Berne Convention? No.

    What I did do was point out the stupidity of your statement that because one didn't sign the Berne Convention that it was somehow related to being the reason why a poor nation was poor.

    But let's be generous and say that you were referring to the Universal Copyright Convention ... which was in 1952, not 1956 ... and not Berne, that's still 66 years that the "poor" US wasn't party to a major international copyright treaty.

    2. The technology was such that stealing intellectual property was a complex thing to do that was usually not worth the effort. (try recording a vinyl record, or song off an am radio on a 1940's recorder)
    And what does this have to do with what we were debating? Or are you trying to explain why the US didn't sign the 1886 Berne Convention until 1988? You need to be more clear about what you're trying to assert or rebute, Monty.

    3. The US had an extremely isolationist disposition from the 1910's to the 1940's and was not big on international agreements. (See the League of Nations, and pre-WW I arguements).
    First, the Berne Convention was signed by European nations in 1886 and not more than twenty years later in the 1910's.

    Second, again, my pointing out the that the US didn't sign the Berne Convention was to point out the stupidity of your statement that to not sign it is an explanation why poor countries are poor.

    4. Items subject to a copyright had a physical form which was copyrighted- every song was recorded. every movie recorded, every book printed. The mere fact that that was translated to a sequence of 1's and 0's does not alter that fact, it just makes it easier to steal it.
    But copyrighted material don't need a physical form to be copyrighted and their physical representation wasn't and isn't copyrighted but merely what was printed, etched, etc. on them.

    5. You are entitled to whistle any tune you want inside your head. You are entitled to think about any movie you want. You are allowed to paraphrase any argument you want in any forum. But if you use an exact reproduction or very close approximation and claim it as your own, you are a plagiarist, or thief IMHO.
    Who said anyone was claiming another song, movie, or argument as their own creation? Stopping building strawmen and attacking them, Monty.

    6. Your ad hominum personal attacks are pompous, tedious, childish, and trollish as expressed in the usage of "stupidity" and suggestions that an argument with which you disagree is drug induced. Your apparent attitude is that "I am Scott Jenson and I did a public access webcast so I am the only opinion that matters". (apologies if I mispelled your name) You apparently do not wish to discuss, you want to enforce your own delusions of superiority.
    You made some VERY stupid and outlandish statements in your last reply and I simply called you on them. I called a spade a spade. I knew you'd get upset when I did, but I don't suffer fools lightly.

    Oh, and just a word of advice from a long-time debater, when you accuse someone of an ad hominem attack, don't do one in return as part of your rebuttal.

    From my perspective, this thread is closed.
    Yup, when the only ammo you're packing is blanks, it's best to leave Dodge City.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  10. #35
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemuel link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104356#msg1043 56 date=1083536258
    If I were you, I would be more concerned about other risks involved in file sharing. Most file sharing programs (limewire, kazaam (sp?) etc.) make it possible for anybody on the file sharing network to get a great deal of information about you and your network connection. Having this information gives any decent hacker or scripter total access to your sytstem and all of the files on it. You should be especially wary if you use your computer for any sort of online banking or storage of any access/security codes. Most home computers have no protection whatsoever against hackers, coders, or even just scriptgeeks who just want to try out their latest hack script.

    Your best bet is to get in contact with somebody who belongs to a file sharing group that they trust (RHIANNON (sp?) for example) and ask to be included in their group.
    Good advice. As for the non-anonymity of current file-sharing programs, that's about to change. During my research for my white paper, I talked to many of the developers of file-sharing programs and the thing at the top of their to-do lists is making file-sharing anonymous. In fact, one already has this capability. It's called Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=index) and was designed so oppressive countries ... *cough* China *cough* ... cannot hunt down its citizens. It is more difficult to use that Kazaa, WinMX, Overnet, and other more popular file-sharing programs and thus have a smaller selection, but it is the future of p2p. There is also a popular US p2p program whose next version will also give its users complete anonymity and it's being delayed while their lawyers get ready for the RIAA's attack upon its release. And there two p2p non-US programs that are mere months away from releasing their own complete-anonymity programs. Soon the hounds of RIAA will lose their scent trails and the only thing that the RIAA will be able to do is howl at the moon.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  11. #36
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    New to the board, but I'll put in my two cents. Without going into the legal arguments (which have been briefed to death out here), on a more simplistic level, I don't understand why all the p2p supporters fight so hard to justify taking something for free from a band you really like?

    I know morally its easy to justify taking money from Mettalica (the Robin Hood approach), but I know tons of small independent bands that are getting screwed by p2p. These are bands that essentially live hand to mouth, without any health insurance or benefits, they need every dollar they can get. Further, the reality is that almost every band in today's age has a website where they put up mp3s or samples to download. If you want to sample, do it legally through their website.

    P2p supporters have to be careful what they ask for. If everything is free, then artists are going to have to resort to other sources for more revenue. advertising (which is already happening), increased ticket prices, etc. are all going to start infiltrating the industry in higher doses. Lastly (and this is already happening), p2p networks (and even legal services like itunes) are probably going to end up killing the album (not to mention cover art). If single downloads are going to drive the business, then artists will have less incentive to make complete albums.

  12. #37
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    jellob~

    People will always want the pretty cover art. In the 80's people had the option to dub tapes reel to reel, yet the record industry is still alive to moan about p2p.

  13. #38
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104134#msg1041 34 date=1083467762
    As for the high moral tone of some correspondents. It does not cost you $30 to give a lap dance either. Maybe your costomers should all pay less because we do not get anything for the tipouts and the house mothers and no bouncer ever did anything for me either. And you can ride a bicycle to work, you do not need the $30K car. And all you need is a bed and a bar of soap, and you were born naked, so cistomers do not need to give you anything for that.
    This is utter bullshit. The tipouts and fees go to help pay for the facilities and other people who make the show possible. Saying customers don't get anything out of those payments is like saying only the actors contribute anything to the production of a movie or play. Next time you go to a stripclub, look around at all the lights, music, chairs, tables, staff working their asses off, costumes, makeup, perfume, hairstyles, etc etc etc - and thank your lucky stars you pay enough to make all that come together...otherwise the girls might be humping you in last night's smelly clothes with bad teeth, stinky hair, while you sit on a fucking tree stump next to a piss bucket!

    And the performer and songwriter do get royalties for each sale.
    The royalties they get are TINY and do not justify the exorbitant cost of a crappy CD that only has 1 or 2 decent songs on it.

    Monty, wake up please. The entertainment industry has been raping us all for ages, all while bemoaning the public's simple desire to get QUALITY product at a REASONABLE price, and while we're at it, make it readily available dammit! I have an extremely hard time finding the music I like - it's out there, but in such limited production and distribution it's impossible for me to even buy most of the stuff I want. WTF is the point in producing stuff your target market can't even buy? So I'll get the damn music I want one way or another. When the music industry catches up with the times and offers it for sale in an appropriate manner, I'll buy it. Until then, they can keep on whining for all I care.

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

  14. #39
    God/dess Rhiannon's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Lil Rhody
    Posts
    10,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Heh.. I'll drink to that.. Cheers, B!


  15. #40
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Since we're on the subject, I just wanted to know if others here share an observation that I've seen regarding the price of recorded music.

    Have you noticed that every other type of media that is for sale gets older (books, VHS, DVD, software, video games) that the price you pay for it gradually falls as its popularity wanes? The one exception to this rule has always been recorded music. A CD that came out ten or twenty years ago often costs the same price as it did the day it came out. Can anyone please explain why this is?

    Your only legal options to get a cheaper copy are to go through a CD Club like Columbia House or find a used copy. Since file sharing came about finding used copies of good relatively new CD's, both online and offline, has gotten very easy. (Mind you that about a decade ago, the RIAA tried to stop music retailers from engaging in that perfectly LEGAL practice).

    And since the advent of file sharing has anyone noticed the explosion of compilation CD's (like the NOW series) of songs that have been released in the last year, and the re-release of several classic CD's at affordable $9.99 prices? I'm not one to excuse piracy by any means, but by doing this sort of backpedaling in the face of it, apparently the RIAA thinks that there is room to budge on the subject of price and availability.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  16. #41
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by jellob75 link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104666#msg1046 66 date=1083608105
    I know morally its easy to justify taking money from Mettalica (the Robin Hood approach), but I know tons of small independent bands that are getting screwed by p2p. These are bands that essentially live hand to mouth, without any health insurance or benefits, they need every dollar they can get. Further, the reality is that almost every band in today's age has a website where they put up mp3s or samples to download. If you want to sample, do it legally through their website.
    That's what the RIAA would like you to believe. Read Janis Ian's papers on this. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html And in my interviews with numerous bands, they all stated that they view records and radio play as nothing more than advertising for their live concerts. Concerts being where the musicians make their money. In fact, a majority of the bands I talked to felt that p2p increase their live concert ticket sales by creating more fans for them. I dealt with this directly in my white paper. http://www.scottjensenshow.com/P2PRevolution.pdf

    P2p supporters have to be careful what they ask for. If everything is free, then artists are going to have to resort to other sources for more revenue.
    They already are and have been BEFORE p2p came around. Live concert ticket sales have been the bread and butter for all bands. That's where the money is. Not record sales.

    advertising (which is already happening), increased ticket prices, etc. are all going to start infiltrating the industry in higher doses.
    They would have done this anyway AND were doing it before p2p came along. It's a business and that means increasing profits anyway you can.

    Lastly (and this is already happening), p2p networks (and even legal services like itunes) are probably going to end up killing the album (not to mention cover art). If single downloads are going to drive the business, then artists will have less incentive to make complete albums.
    First, the death of the album is an excellent byproduct of all this. If the band has a hit song, the rest of the album is almost always nothing more than filler. Back during the 45 singles, Side B was even a filler. The epitome of Side B fillers was the epic guitar solos.

    Second, the small CD case already killed album cover art before p2p came along.

    Third, getting artists to focus on making a really good single song will improve the music world instead of wasting time on making fillers for albums.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  17. #42
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Pumpkin Pie, I skimmed your paper...don't have time to read all 33 pages because I'm at work, but there isn't a single footnote or citation that I saw. It just seemed like your opinions on the topic.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, it just seems to me that p2p supporters fight so hard to justify their position, but why wouldn't they, they're getting something for nothing and dont want to lose that "right." I guess I just take a simplistic view, I don't know why it's so bad to pay for music. I know that many artists like p2p for its promotional capabilities, but copyright laws don't stand for the propositon that an artist must charge for music, they are solely a means for artists to control their work. So if they want to give away music, they have every right to.

    As for artists getting screwed by royalties, that's more a byproduct of the major record label contracts (but I still don't think you have a right to steal their music, if they didn't want a major label record deal they didnt have to sign the contract). I've talked to a lot of indie bands, and they're capable of doing decent business from their record sales (probably better than they could with a major); and downloading a song and then not buying their album deprives them of money. I think that's wrong.


  18. #43
    Veteran Member Pumpkin Pie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    718
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by jellob75 link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg105110#msg1051 10 date=1083691044
    Pumpkin Pie, I skimmed your paper...don't have time to read all 33 pages because I'm at work, but there isn't a single footnote or citation that I saw. It just seemed like your opinions on the topic.
    If you read the introduction to the white paper, I address this. It has also been reviewed by experts in the field and the best three comments given are quoted on the cover page. Every conclusion is based on facts and none of the experts that reviewed it disagreed with any that made it to the final draft. If you find some that you disagree with, I'd be more than happy to discuss it/them.

    Anyway, at the end of the day, it just seems to me that p2p supporters fight so hard to justify their position, but why wouldn't they, they're getting something for nothing and dont want to lose that "right."
    Just as record companies, computer programmers, artists, inventors, and so forth think they have a right to profit from their work but pay nothing to those whose work theirs was built on. They seem to think that Sir Isaac Newton was crazy when he once said: "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Governments know this. They know that no creator is truly original in all aspects and that they have built their "original" product on the work of others. This is one of the reasons why copyrights have a limited lifespan. Copyrights were only to promote the DEVELOPMENT of science and art, not forever own it. In our egocentric times today, creators forget that and claim the wheel as their own invention. That the public is starting to disagree with this is not only understandable but logical, rational, and probably long overdue.

    I guess I just take a simplistic view, I don't know why it's so bad to pay for music.
    Being as libertarian, I can see your point, but I can see the other side as well. It always amazes me that those that are against file-sharing cannot see the other person's view and discounts it out of hand. That being just another example of our egocentric times.

    And this whole argument has to do with value, the perception of it, and a person's own view of copyrights. As you have probably read in many of the posts here made against the music industry, customers are feeling ripped off by the music industry. While they appreciate some of the music, they do not value it as highly as the music industry does. Those that think a little deeper also realize that all these artists owe debts to previous artists.

    Whenever you hear an artist say they were "inspired" by another artist's work and it "influenced" theirs, they talking about theft. Did that artist pay royalties to their inspiration? Nope. In fact, read up on the music industry and all the lawsuits that have taken place because one artist claimed another artist stole their music or parts of it. What does the defending artist do? Do they say "You're right. Here's a share of the money I made off that song."? Never. Never once has that happened. The defending artist fights tooth and nail that they didn't rip off another artist and refuses to pay them a penny. And these same defending artists turn right around and scream when people download their song without paying them. That's hypocritical at the very least.

    And think of this analogy. You're dying of poison. The local shop keeper has the antidote, but refuses to sell it to you for less than all the money you have and then some. You complain about the price and it falls on deaf ears. You offer to pay a smaller amount and your offer is not only refused but the shop keeper acts insulted by it. You point out that the antidote was the result of numerous publicly-funded research and the shop keeper ignores such claims and continues to claim the antidote as solely his. What do you do? Respect the shop keeper's property rights and die? Or do you steal it? Unless you're an idiot (a.k.a. soon-to-be-dead idiot), you steal it.

    Now, yes, I know that example is extreme, but it is the underlining issue of most the anti-music industry posts here. Again and again, posters have stated in this thread that they'd pay if the price was lower. The music industry knows this. I know this for a fact having interviewed many of them for my white paper. But they don't see that as being the most profitable way of doing business so they keep CD prices ... in the view of most consumers ... high. The potential consumers feel that they were willing to pay a certain amount but that amount is rejected by the music industry. The potential customers feel rebuffed by the pricing strategies of the record companies and thus do not feel guilty by downloading these same songs off the p2p networks. Are the downloaders wrong? Yes. Are the record companies wrong? To these downloaders, yes. That's how the downloaders rationalize their action and, from a philosophical viewpoint, they're not really wrong in doing so.

    I know that many artists like p2p for its promotional capabilities, but copyright laws don't stand for the proposition that an artist must charge for music, they are solely a means for artists to control their work. So if they want to give away music, they have every right to.
    But the artists don't own the rights to their work. The record companies do. I've talked to many artists that would allow free downloading of their music, but cannot because they don't own it. The record companies do. Even though the artists know that they make almost all of their money off of their live concerts and p2p would help create more fans and thus more people paying to see them perform live.

    As for artists getting screwed by royalties, that's more a byproduct of the major record label contracts (but I still don't think you have a right to steal their music, if they didn't want a major label record deal they didnt have to sign the contract).
    That's very shallow reasoning and rationalizing. Do you know all the future ramifications of every decision you make? Do you realize the average age of an artist that signs with record companiesis only 18? Do you realize how few of these up-n-coming young artists have the foresight to hire their own lawyers to work out a better deal? Do you realize that the artists sign away ALL their rights to their music to the record companies for eternity? Who owns the music of the Beatles? Wrong answer: one of the still-living Beatles or one of their heirs. Right answer: Michael Jackson who bought them at an auction ... outbidding Paul McCartney (one of the Beatles) for them. That's the reality of the music industry.

    As I said in a previous post, creators are starting to talk about changing this. They want all rights to revert back to the creator after only a few years. Less for entertainment properties and they're willing to allow more years for inventions. The record companies would then have only a limited amount of time to profit from their songs and then the artist gets them back. If the record company wanted to continue selling the artist's songs, they have to strike another deal for each extension. Is that right? Of course it is. Copyrights is a legal invention and thus can be changed by legislaturers anyway they wish. Will the record companies feel they've been stolen from? Of course they will. There is no solution that someone won't feel that they're getting the worst end of the deal.

    I've talked to a lot of indie bands, and they're capable of doing decent business from their record sales (probably better than they could with a major);
    "Decent" is a relative term. If your idea of luxury is making next month's rent, then that's decent to you. Anyway...

    I interviewed over two hundred bands for my white paper. From rock to country to gospel to instrumental to heavy metal to you name it. One band opened the door for me to interview other bands and those bands opened the door for me to interview still other bands. I talked to bands that play at coffee houses and ones with Top 40 hits. All of them were kind enough to read my white paper and give me feedback on it. None disagreed with its conclusions and all said that's where the industry is headed. Interestingly, none felt scared about that future. They know they'll still be around when it happens. They'll just have to adjust to it and many are adjusting to it right now. That's really what my white paper is all about. The business model for that future.

    ...and downloading a song and then not buying their album deprives them of money. I think that's wrong.
    And sitting on the rooftop of a building to watch the live concert for free also deprives them of that ticket sale. Should we get the police to fly helicopters over those buildings to prevent this from happening? Of course not. The bands must accept such losses and focus on where they can make money, such as selling tickets to people that don't want to use telescopes to see what's happening on stage. In other words, they need to stop whining that the world isn't fair and adjust to the new reality. Some will be able to and, like makers of buggy whips when cars hit the scene, some will not. The bands can. The record companies cannot. And that's why the record companies are acting the way they are. They know they have a death sentence. They're just trying to put it off as long as they can.
    Have a question about boarding schools?
    Get it answered at Boarding School Forums.

  19. #44
    God/dess Bridgette's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Gettin the fuck outta Dodge!
    Posts
    14,241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:r.i.a.a

    Quote Originally Posted by doc-catfish link=board=1;threadid=8788;start=msg104839#msg1048 39 date=1083628433
    Since we're on the subject, I just wanted to know if others here share an observation that I've seen regarding the price of recorded music.

    Have you noticed that every other type of media that is for sale gets older (books, VHS, DVD, software, video games) that the price you pay for it gradually falls as its popularity wanes? The one exception to this rule has always been recorded music. A CD that came out ten or twenty years ago often costs the same price as it did the day it came out. Can anyone please explain why this is?
    This is along the same track I was pointing out about the price of CDs continuing to remain the same, while the rest of 'technology' and media items decrease in price over time. Do the record companies really think their product is that valuable? PLEASE!

    Your only legal options to get a cheaper copy are to go through a CD Club like Columbia House or find a used copy. Since file sharing came about finding used copies of good relatively new CD's, both online and offline, has gotten very easy. (Mind you that about a decade ago, the RIAA tried to stop music retailers from engaging in that perfectly LEGAL practice).
    I've joined Columbia House. They don't have NEARLY the selection most people want. Most of the music I want will never be available through them. The RIAA will always find something to bitch about because they refuse to sell quality product, make it readily available, and at a reasonable price. Why are they still trying to force full albums down our throats when we are wise to the fact that there are generally only 1-2 good songs on said album? Why do they not just do as every other damn company does and make the product the customers want available and priced WITH the market?

    And since the advent of file sharing has anyone noticed the explosion of compilation CD's (like the NOW series) of songs that have been released in the last year, and the re-release of several classic CD's at affordable $9.99 prices? I'm not one to excuse piracy by any means, but by doing this sort of backpedaling in the face of it, apparently the RIAA thinks that there is room to budge on the subject of price and availability.
    This is a good point which I thought deserved not to get lost in the crowd of long-winded posts on this subject. I have bought compilation CDs that had several songs I wanted on them, and would continue to do so because it saves me from having to find/buy all those separate albums I don't want anyway and therefore is of good value to me. I have also stated, and I repeat, I would pay a legitimate downloading service a reasonable monthly fee for the privilige of downloading whatever I want all month long, provided they make the stuff available!

    As I said before, the RIAA would be of much more benefit to the record companies (and everyone else) if they focused their energy on working out a system like that, rather than on the witchhunts they're making of all this.

    Quote Originally Posted by pheno View Post
    When you lead a nontraditional life don't try to measure it with traditional milestones.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •