This is madness. Srsly.
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182133
Printed Date: 08 December 2025 at 4:13pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: This is madness. Srsly.
Posted By: Benjichang
Subject: This is madness. Srsly.
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 8:39am
|
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html - Link Woman fined $1.9 MILLION ($1,900,000) for illegally downloading, get ready for it- 24 songs. I am dumbstruck. Regardless of your opinion on piracy, this is insane. GG, RIAA. Burn in hell, kthnx. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Replies:
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 8:45am
|
I don't know if they fine people with such a big number to prove a point or just for the hell of it, but they really need to go for the people that have downloaded hundreds and thousands of songs. There are so many households that are illegally downloading music, yet they seem to always screw over the ones that have done the least. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:10am
I can pretty much guarantee that this woman was sharing a lot more than 24 songs. They just sue over a smaller number because those songs all belong to the same studio, or they have particularly good evidence for those songs. And in any event they want to keep trial short and sweet. With 24 songs they can offer specific evidence of download and sharing for each song - if they sued for 2,400 songs they wouldn't have time to offer specific evidence for each.
They aren't trying for super-duper damages, they are just trying to make a point.
As to the damages, they are awarded by jury pursuant to statute. This jury actually cranked up the damages - a lot - from what the jury in the prior trial awarded.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
RoboCop wrote:Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:15am
|
Good, and they should continue to go after the pirates. The artists do not work for free, and expect to get paid for thier work, as all of you would. If you all had any ethics at all you would send her a check for at least $1000.00 based on your pirating of music. It was fun stealing the music, now the cyber-cops are out there, matter of time. ------------- 
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:16am
|
i would have to pay 28 million if they charged me the same amount per song as they did her
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:25am
|
The only good thing about the way the RIAA operates is that it gives a lot of room for new, unknown artists to sell themselves. People will gladly buy cheap music off the internet, given the chance. More than anything, I think the RIAA is digging a hole it's going to have to work hard to get out of in the next decade or two. If they want to continue to be greedy rather than changing their marketing strategy, they're going to end up losing. For the record, I don't have any illegal music. Also, I'm a little confused -- is this a civil case, or a criminal one? Bu that woman is clearly some level of retarded. I'm not sure if the fine is related in any way to the jury's belief in the amount of damage she's done, or her ridiculous rebuttals to the RIAA's claims. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Enmity
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:30am
| I would have to pay 204,160,000 million if they charged me the same amount. |
Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:31am
"...a band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties for each full-priced CD sold through normal retail channels and less elsewhere." Most of the money made on albums go directly to the record companies not the band itself. The band makes most of their money of tours and merchandise. http://www.musiclaw.me/contractbasics.html - http://www.musiclaw.me/contractbasics.html -------------  |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:34am
|
What planet are you people on that think this is justified? She was convicted of stealing the equivalent of 2 C.D.'s. Let's say $30. How can a sane person think that $1.9 million is a fair punishment for $30 of stolen goods? Think about what you are saying. Regardless of illegality, filesharing is here to stay. If I was convicted for every pirated song I have at the same rate, I would be out $1,200,000,000. How does that make sense at all? How are damages this high justified? If piracy is really stealing like the RIAA is always saying, why not charge people with theft instead of this crap about copyright infringement? The funny thing is, even though they are never going to collect this money, even if they could, the artists wouldn't see a dime of it. It makes me irate that anyone can agree with this. Just more reason to support independent labels and artists like Radiohead that know how to adapt to changing market models instead of fighting against them. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:42am
I think it was a combination of a) her repeatedly changing her story, and b) the likelihood that she had probably shared something in the area of 1700-2400 songs. The law says $18,000 - $150,000 a song for willful copyright infringement, so it could have been a lot worse.
I can definitely agree with that. But as shown by Sweden, intimidation does seem to at least reduce filesharing. That's their goal here. The problem is that they have this big cumbersome structure, in terms of their company and the legal system, and that filesharing is a far more flexible structure, which they won't be able to remove, no matter what they do.
This is the point I was trying to make above. Absolutely the truth. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 10:52am
|
I wish she didn't change the story and try to hide evidence. Rather than saying "I didn't do it", she should have been honest. That way she would have way more credibility, and could have used this case as a chance to show how ridiculous the RIAA actually is. I love how they have to make an example of a single mother. Even if she did have 2400 songs, that's a drop in the bucket compared what other people have. There is no way the RIAA could even begin to collect enough evidence to prosecute even a small percentage of the total filesharers out there. It is impossible to have enough resources and manpower to even start. Filesharing is something much bigger than them. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 11:36am
|
This is a civil matter under the Copyright Act. Nobody was convicted of anything. The RIAA sued the lady for damages for copyright infringement.
General copyright law allows copyright holders to sue infringers for actual damages suffered. The Copyright Act provides for statutory damages (more or less as Pariel described) for registered copyrights without having to show specific damages. This rule was put in place specifically for situations like this, where it would be difficult for the copyright holder to show meaningful actual damages from a single infringement, but where the infringement is willful and detrimental to the value of the copyright.
While random filesharers are fairly sympathethic defendants and the RIAA may be evil, the bottom line is that this type of situation is exactly what this law is for. This is the Copyright Act being used for its intended purpose. The only real difference is that when the Act was enacted it didn't envision a culture where copyright infringement had become mainstream, with no moral stigma. It may be time to change copyright laws, but be careful of Pandora's Box. Intellectual property laws are a big part of what drives economic growth, and the Copyright Act is a big part of that.
For those of you who favor legalizing filesharing - should that also apply to software? I buy a copy of Rosetta Stone for a zillion dollars, and post it on the internet for public free download? That's ok? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 11:55am
I think that the software, music, movie, and television industries should stop looking as filesharing as a malignant tumor. They are never going to be able to prevent filesharing, it's simply not economically viable. As far as I see it, they don't have a choice except to change their business models to adapt to the changing ways their products are distributed. If that means that in the next ten years we no longer see hard copy DVDs and CDs being produced for video games, movies, and music, so be it. But if the iTunes store is the best that big business can do to distribute its wares to the public, they're going to to be fighting this battle forever. *EDIT* Lovin' the new title. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:02pm
|
I don't think that filesharing should be legal for both software and music. I'm still going to do it though, because for the most part, I can get away with it and it's cheap. I'm a college student, and I really don't have a ton of money even though I work. I'd love to support the artists I love, and I do when I can by going to shows, buying merchandise, and CD's, but when I can get an album for free easily that is often overlooked. I do think, however, that penalties for cases like this need to be reduced drastically. Copyright laws need to be changed to better accommodate a culture that is vastly becoming more and more digital. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:09pm
I agree with this entirely. The RIAA needs to realize that filesharing probably isn't depriving them of significant revenue. Didn't record companies say that radio was going to do the same thing? There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that filesharing can actually help artists. A lot of bands are starting to let buyers name their own price for their music, even for free. Another thought that was brough up in chat- What about the film industry? Plenty of people pirate films, but do we ever hear of some association of actors suing individuals for downloading The Big Lebowski? ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:12pm
Frankly, I think the film industry loses a lot more revenue than the music industry does through filesharing. I know a lot of people who download music, but still go to shows and buy CDs, but few who download movies and then buy the actual thing. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:21pm
|
The movie industry definitely doesn't lose as much money as they say. Every movie I have ever downloaded I only watched because I could download it. Stuff I wanted to see, but wouldn't have spent the $10 admission. I know I am not the only one. I remember when the Wolverine movie leaked. I read an article that had a quote that went something like "If people download this they may not like it". I forget the exact quote, but my first thought was "maybe they should have made a better movie then?" Same with record companies. I have learned of and listened to many bands only because I could get their albums for free. What did I do after I started listening? I went to their shows, and bought Tshirts. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:56pm
Unlike the rest of the people in this thread, I won't let this post just slip by without some further discussion. Are you sure you want to talk ethics when dealing with issues against record companies? Notice I said record labels, not artists. Also, explain your last sentence. Were you saying it is a matter of time until piracy is completely stopped? ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:07pm
|
I just am amazed at the statements made. So it would be ok for someone to take your work or product for free, just because they can, and you all would have no problem with that? Just because you are a poor college student does not excuse the behavior. Yes the lables get the majority, but it is thier manufacturing, marketing and transportation costs. How many of you would work at a project for months, expect to get paid for it, and see your neighbor stealing your project and not paying. All of you, and that is the problem, most of you see nothing wrong with this behavior unless it directly affects you.
It is just a matter of time before there are things in place to catch the file sharer's, and illegal downloaders, and the cyber-cops will be there. You all are just plain robbing the artis and lables, just without a gun, and think that it is OK.....says a lot for this generation. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:10pm
|
I don't rob artists. They are paid before the CD is produced.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:11pm
|
OS, I think you should know that there are more file sharers than ever today, and it's becoming harder and harder to catch them. Your notion that filesharing's days are numbered is simply inaccurate. I'm not sure if you know this, but there is always a way around things.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:12pm
|
Yes and here is why I think so. Libraries and schools do this all the time. Library's will buy a book, cd, movie, what have you, then a person comes into the library, uses material without paying. If I read a book, I am making a mental copy of it and can use the information at a later time. Same with schools and students. Same with an art gallery. A person walks into a gallery mentally remembers all the images then later, retrieves memories for later review. If rosetta and software wants more money, throw in advertising and all the other crap they already do.... If a person wants something badly enough and they have means to pay what they think it is worth, they will do so. Music artist can make money by going on tours... Movies can get their money when people go to the theater and watch it there. There is still tons of money to be made out there. Some people have just gotten too greedy and too used to doing things the old way. I dont understand how the notion of sharing has been made out to be stealing. A physical example that illustrates that same principle is as follows. A person goes to a bakery and buys a bread starter kit. The original purchaser cultivates a bread colony and after a few days, the culture grows to big, so the purchaser gives some of the culture to the neighbor. The same cycle of sharing continues over and over until 64 people have the starter dough from the single purchase. Do the bakery that sold the bread starter kit to the original sell need to call his lawyers? |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:18pm
|
Yes and as a matter of fact, this happens to me all the time. As a graphic designer/artist my work is taken all the time, for free. All someone has to do is send a digital copy to their printer at home, and whala, free art. Do I care, no, that is how it is. If someone later sees one of my works displayed on someone's wall and says, "wow, I like that. tell me about it," its free advertising for me. At the end of the day, I still get paid, just as music artist are paid. Not as much as I could if I somehow got a dollar every time someone hits print but I still get paid. There are people out there that are willing to purchase my work in a medium or fashion that their computer cant produce. Even if they could reproduce it, if the people like the work enough, then a buyer will be willing to buy an original. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:21pm
|
I think their costs are too high then if they feel justified ripping people off for CD's. Also, if these CD's cost too much for them to burn, package, label and transport, maybe they need to look into an alternative with lower operating costs. Again, ethics and record companies don't belong in the same sentence. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:37pm
I think that filesharing is totally accepted at this point, and it's not just "this generation" doing it. It happens to be more prevalent in the 15-30 age group because they happen to more tech savvy, as a general rule, than their elders.
Exactly. The powers that be have made very move to suppress new ways of distributing music, even though it's clear that it would be the best method to distribute their merchandise. If they're too stupid to wise up, they'll end up getting thrown out eventually.
The problem is not that costs are too high -- it's that they've been paid ridiculous amounts of money for what they do, and they don't want to give it up. The RIAA has been able to have such a huge affect on legislation because they have so much extra money to throw around. Instead of changing business practices, they're trying to make everyone come to them anyway, and it isn't working. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:44pm
Agreed, I was just addressing the claim OS made about marketing, manufacturing and transportation being the reason behind the prices of CDs. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 4:08pm
|
This is just stupid, filesharing has already been proven to have zero impact on sales of music. It's also been proven that providing digital samples of your work online for free will increase sales of physical copies, because they know what they're getting.
This is just people with outdated laws and ideas trying to apply them to current situations. *edit* The DMCA is total crap |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 4:11pm
Or do as many others already do. Offer digital copies to decrease the number of physical copies required. As I said in the previous post, it is simply people with outdated ideas and laws struggling to use them in todays situations. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 4:45pm
Yeah, I'm gonna need citations for both of those claims. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:03pm
|
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/8813.ars - Indistinguishible from Zero
FTA: " the researchers estimated that P2P affected no more than 0.7% of sales in that timeframe. " And I believe there are even more recent studies on this, I did a paper on it in first year but don't want to get my external. http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-48795.html - And # 2 FTA: "They say that this makes it more likely that the consumer listening to a sample will buy the full product, whether that's a CD or a track download, rather than being a free-rider." From Robert Morris University. This has been proven successful by several artists, and in fact there is a great article in the latest issue of Wired about encouraging authors to do the same. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-06/st_thompson - Wired FTA: "The few authors who have experimented with giving away digital copies (mostly in sci-fi) have found that they end up selling more print copies, because their books are discovered by more people." |
Posted By: BradNowell
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:30pm
TL;DR OS is wrong. ------------- "When I travel through mountainous areas or places of questionable hillbilly population, I usually keep a gun in the vehicle" -Da Hui |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:32pm
| If it involves technology or young people, probably. |
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:54pm
|
I just want to point out that this woman could've settled for $3,000 to $5,000 beforehand, and the RIAA is still willing to negotiate a settlement with her. Saw it in some article today. Might be just a tad better than $1.9 million.
------------- 
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 6:03pm
Still absurd |
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 6:45pm
I'm aware. But you'd think she'd be more than happy to settle considering she won't win and her defense is plain awful. -------------
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 6:49pm
| I wouldn't be happy to settle, especially not for that amount. |
Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 7:03pm
I also wouldn't expect you to put together a defense as poorly as she did. -------------
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 7:10pm
| Haha true enough |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 7:10pm
|
Isnt the concept "justice" supposed be that a victim is made whole and but not profitting from the crime? Since when is the victim ever better off than they were before the infraction. I think there is major room for an appeal or a look again at the punishment. Plus she was convicted of just the seven songs, if RIAA wanted all that money, they should have presented all the songs and evidence. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 7:42pm
|
The RIAA is exceptionally good at being bad at what they do, it seems to be their thing. And yeah, it really seems like we are trying to punish new crimes with old penalties that just don't apply or make sense. And as it stands, piracy is better than paying in nearly every way, for every medium.
I torrent a movie and I get to watch it wherever whenever I want, however I want. When I launch the movie it gets right to it. If I BUY a movie I overpay for it, and only have limited rights with it. Then when I do want to watch it, I have to watch your previews and warnings, etc before the movie starts. Steam is one of the few companies who are doing it properly. Easy automatic copy protection (no monthly re-auth like spore wanted) and near-instant satisfaction. You pick your game, and it downloads and is ready to go asap. They embraced modern technologies and distribution methods which are far better than walking to the store and hoping there is a copy. Other companies are picking up on this, or already have. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 8:10pm
That's probably the best example I've ever heard. If the music industry could apply what Steam knows, they'd probably not lose a cent to filesharers -- or at least a lot fewer cents. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 8:14pm
| iTunes already does that, which sold $3.34 billion in 2008. It's prove positive of new methods of distribution. I can't believe the zune marketplace uses microsoft points...just insane. |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 20 June 2009 at 1:28am
|
TL;DR Bands don't like the piracy that is going on, but the record label are the ones that get mad because they lose out on the money. Sure bands get paid by the record labels to be signed onto that label, but they don't make a lot off of CD sales or itunes sales. Many bands have just gone off to doing a lot of concerts because that is the only place they can actually make money now. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 20 June 2009 at 8:39am
It's because of Steam that I have stopped pirating games. Many of the games I've been interested in are available and sometimes dirt cheap after enough time has passed. The best part about it is that while you're still "renting" the game, it can be installed on any computer and played without limits. You don't have discs to lose or scratch, just an account to take care of. I agree that media distribution should be done more wisely. I think a dollar per song is still too much, and the fact that I get it at lower quality with limits to how I play said song (and no guarantees that I can get it back if the song is lost) makes me want to look for other means of acquiring music. Independent artists are great and I'd much rather buy music when the proceeds go to the artists rather than some giant company that cares little for the well being of the people behind the contracts. Movies face the least amount of loss, simply because there is still a huge market for the movie theatre. It's still considered a social place, and some movies are best seen in front of a huge screen with good sound. It's impossible for all but the wealthiest of us to replicate that feeling at home. Even if you did, you can't get a movie on the day it comes out for any reasonable sum of money. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 20 June 2009 at 9:49am
I like this comic:
What REALLY scares the RIAA when it comes down to it, is that they are trying desperately to hide the fact that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant in this age. Record labels have always used shady deals and cleverly written contracts to make it extremely difficult for artists to make any money from the records they sell. Some bands sell millions of records, and end up still in debt to their record label. Meanwhile, bands can buy high quality recording equipment for relatively little money, and record their music, and distribute it on their own terms. The RIAA has done a horrible job of keeping up with technology. They still have a business model that involves manufacturing, shipping and selling their music on plastic discs. And once they finally started selling digital music files online, it took them another five years to stop selling crippled DRM protected files. Instead of finding ways to use the internet, they use lawsuits to try and make it the way it was before Napster. While I am sympathetic to artists who are trying to make a living from music, the RIAA's scare tactics and lawsuits aren't the answer either. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 June 2009 at 4:23pm
I fully agree with that too. Because of piracy I have gone to many concerts I never would have otherwise, simply never having heard of them, or having a chance to try them out before I drop serious coin on a concert ticket. I know the band makes more money through concerts and merchandise, so I try to support who I can when they come to town, so far I'm doing pretty well. |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 21 June 2009 at 5:20pm
|
if i got hit, i'd be willing to settle as long as I could write the check out to the artists that I stole from. |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 2:45am
Same here. I found out about a lot of foreign bands by downloading their music illegally and then went to their concerts and told my friends about them. I definitely went to more shows as a result of illegal downloading. Also, I only download the music illegally because I can't afford to buy it anyway so nobody is losing any money to me. I think most people are actually in the same situation and that's why sales aren't actually hurt as bad as the RIAA would like you to think. If I had the money, I'd buy the music just to support the bands and I think most people would do the same. ------------- oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey Me: But only if they're hungary Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 3:35pm
Does the RIAA ever go after people who only download, not share? If so, how do they handle those cases? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 3:37pm
|
Also, to your Rosetta Stone point: A few years back I found Adobe CS2 on a torrent or limewire or something. So, I downloaded it cause hey - I like to make pretty pictures or whatever. Never in a million years would I pay $600 to buy Adobe, but it was free so screw it, why not? People who have a legitimate professional need for software will almost always buy the legit copy. This is actually an interesting point from an economic perspective. This is software - the company is not hurt financially, as if an actual theft occurred. People who would not normally purchase the software, and instead steal it, are not actually damaging the company in any way. They (the pirates) are actually being made better off, without making anyone else worse off. Weird! Of course, that small minority who steal the software when they have a legitimate need for it (and would have had to purchase it) are hurting the company. The math behind this would be interesting. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 5:46pm
Relating to your last point -- Adobe was payed over a million dollars (at $600 a pop, that's over 1,600 copies of CS4 -- and I found it for $500) by a company (whose name was not disclosed, due to whatever agreement they came to in paying the fine) pretty recently. So, clearly some companies are losing revenue to pirates. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 7:10pm
|
I agree with that point, if you are using the software (or w/e) for professional purposes or monetary gain, you should have a legit copy if at all possible. Now as a student I use Maya and Photoshop all the time, but I'm not handing over thousands and thousands of my dollars for a license yet. However my friend Corey is working on becoming a producer/ dj and he has a legit copy of everything he uses because he DJ's events, etc.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 7:43pm
|
I'd have no problem with this whole process if people were forced to pay what the song is worth, not ten trillion times that amount. Lining the pockets of the incredibly rich with money from the incredibly poor...gee, that's good publicity. But let's look at the real problem here-music is too damned expensive. I'm sorry, 99 cents a song? If I payed 99 cents a song my music library would be worth thousands. But it's not. I can't legitimately say what music is worth, but I can tell you that the people who buy the music are practically screaming to the record labels they feel they're being robbed blind, so they're robbing back.
And it's my opinion (read:opinion, not legal analysis) that file sharing is just that-sharing. When I purchase something I should be able to use it for anything I want with the exception of making profit.
The solution to this problem? Step off your thrones and give the people what they want, a more affordable product. I'd much rather buy cd's than dl them-I think most people enjoy having at least some form of hard copy of music, it's a tradition as old as collecting vinyls.
Props to the bands that have said eff you to these people. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 7:49pm
| I wonder if OS opposed mixtapes. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 11:34pm
|
I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind thinking it is okay to steal something (i.e. downloading music) if it's too expensive. Using this same train of thought, since I can't afford a Porshe, it would be okay to go down to the local dealership (if we had one) and just drive off with it. If music is really too expensive, then the customers should vote with their wallets and refuse to make purchases until the price is reduced by supply and demand. Any other behavior is (under the current laws) just stealing and finding justifications for it. Oh, and I consider the RIAA to be a bunch of dirtbags as well . . . but that doesn't justify theft. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 22 June 2009 at 11:52pm
While I personally agree with you, the theory postulated above was: If you steal music, you are not taking anything from the bands -- they aren't losing money from your sharing. If you stole a Porsche, they would be not only losing money, but a lot of it. Legally and morally, this is not a reasonable position to take, but I think it is the view of many filesharers, if they feel a need to justify their sharing. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:00am
|
For what it's worth itunes raised almost all songs to $1.29. My music library is 2,450 songs. That's over $3,000 of music had I purchased it all. Supposedly. Why can't I go on ebay and auction off my music library for $3,000? (can I?) Let's assume I can. NOBODY ON EARTH WOULD BUY IT. That's a retarded amount of money to pay for music which you can hear on a radio for about $9.99 at radio shack. What this whole fiasco is telling me, is that music is too expensive, and people are finding alternative means of acquiring it. It's really simple, I can draw the graph and everything. Price too high, demand down. Pirated music is a close substitute, and in some cases even superior, as itunes and other sites don't offer that amazing of quality which you can sometimes find on the internet. -------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:09am
|
the newest limewire has a feature where you can unshare all of your music files
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:11am
That's been there for like 6 years tbh -------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:15am
|
well they've made it right on the homepage is what i meant. its right next to the song title now
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:23am
I hope you're kidding, thats just silly. When I download an album I am not physically removing it from the shelves of the store. I'm not going into the other peoples homes and taking their cd's from their rooms. I'm sure someone already said this, but should we not be allowed to see art online without paying for it? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:30am
|
Downloading music is stealing. Should it be stealing? No. Do I think the money should go directly to the artist? Yes. Would I buy more albums if it did? Yes. That is why I buy CD's at shows. That is giving them the money directly. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:40am
I think the idealogy is that it's sharing not stealing.
Let me use your own example-
Using limewire to download music is the equivalent of the Porsche owner saying "Hey bro! Take my Porsche!" and Porsche itself suing you for the price of the car.
The tricky part is that a Porsche can't be replicated for freeand those copies given away, thereby robbing the company of sales. That's why special exceptions are made for music. However, it's not a black and white issue, because most people still feel like that the music they buy should be theirs to do what they want with, as long as a profit isn't being made.
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:36am
Interesting articles:
Not to get too nit-picky here, but a study that fails to find a statistically significant impact in a fairly narrow sample is a long way from "proven to have zero impact on sales." Hard to tell from an article, of course, and it would be interesting to read the actual study.
Not to say that your claim is wrong, but it is a pretty bold statement: "zero impact" - and therefore requires significant evidence to back up. Doubly true since it is not difficult to think of numerous anecdotal incidents where illegal downloads led directly to lost sales. Triply true since simple reason says that sales must be negatively affected when the products are available free. Would sales at Best Buy go down if there were racks of free stuff in the parking lot? Powerful evidence indeed is required to overcome.
But certainly worth reading more on the subject.
Anyway:
Here I think I misread your earlier post - I don't think there is much reason to doubt that availability of SAMPLES helps sales, and this link supports that. But samples are just that - SAMPLES, and there is a long way from a sample to a full download. A free high-quality sample allows me to make a decision about buying the full product - free high quality full product makes buying the product moot.
Can anybody give me a reason to buy a song for a buck that I already downloaded at no cost?
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:43am
Samples in my opinion dont give you a very good feel for the band. The sample is usually only 15-30 seconds. A reason to buy the song? No. But it could give you a reason to buy some merchandise like a t-shirt or a concert ticket where the band receives most of its profits. ------------- |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:49am
Yes, but this is how people happen to sample their music. As is already evident in this thread people download new music and discover it because it is easier than ever, then go support them at a local show or buy merchandise, etc. As I already mentioned, would you be opposed to mixtapes? Whats the difference between recording songs off the radio (or friends tapes) onto your own tape for convenience (or to give to others) How is that different than downloading a song and burning it? Sure it's more convenient, but you are doing the same thing. And no Peter I can't give you an example of a reason to buy most music because as I mentioned the DMCA is crap and you are better off to pirate the songs because you are less restricted. Yes iTunes has DRM free music now, but unless I REALLY feel like the artist deserves the support I'm fine with downloading it and going to their concerts. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:55am
Not the same. The library has one copy that is used sequentially by multiple people. There is no rule against lending your music CD to your friends - or your movies, or books, or whatever. That "mental copy" isn't a copy at all, it is just the intended use of the product.
The equivalent would be if libraries bought a copy of a book, xeroxed a whole bunch of them, and handed them out to patrons to keep.
And that would indeed be a massive violation of copyright law.
Again, totally irrelevant. By this theory, you wouldn't be allowed to read a book you bought.
But, BTW, the art in the gallery is there by permission of the owner. And that owner is free to not show the painting to anybody if he chooses, or only show it under certain conditions. You have no right to view the art, and many museums prohibit photography for exactly this reason.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Software is expensive to develop, even if distribution is free. The price is set based on projected sales to recover those upfront costs. If there is rampant piracy then sales are unpredictable, and the prices will therefore have to be higher.
And artists do in fact mostly make money from tours, and studios make money from movie theaters - but notice a difference: there is a difference. I choose to pay $20 to see a movie in a theater instead of waiting for HBO because the theater provides a BETTER experience, and I don't have to wait. I pay $200 to see a band play songs that I already have on CD because seeing the band live is DIFFERENT than listening to the CD.
What is the difference between an illegally downloaded song and a legally purchased song? NOTHING. It is the exact same product. It isnt' a preview, it isn't a "full unlocked version," it isn't presented in 3D. It is the exact same product.
If I already have a copy of a song, however obtained, what could possibly motivate me to buy another? It is the exact same thing, and I can copy it all I want.
Here is a better analogy:
Inventor guy invents something cool - call it intermittent windshield wipers. He gets it patented. He contacts a car company and shows them the invention. Cool invention, says the car company. We'll give you $50k to let us put the wipers on only one of our models. The inventor agrees. A year later, every new car on the planet made by all the car companies has intermittent wipers, and the inventor has been paid nothing beyond the first $50k.
Should he call his lawyers? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:01am
Who are you to decide how record companies run their business or what they charge?
Besides, the physical CD is only part of the equation. How much do songs cost on iTunes (before variable pricing)? $1. Twelve songs to a CD... $12/CD, which is pretty much what I pay on Amazon.
You are paying for the music, not the CD. Yes CDs are an obsolete and wasteful distribution channel, but that just means you should start competing, not start stealing. You don't get to steal a product because you think it costs too much.
Now, granted that record companies DO have a history of actual price-fixing, but even when they were cheating they didn't cost much more than now. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:06am
I think this thread is evidence that it is not "totally accepted." There are plenty of people who think filesharing is morally equivalent to stealing. If you think it is totally accepted you need to get out more.
What is this legislation that the RIAA has been affecting? I won't dispute that they spend lots on lobbying, but that hardly seems a basis for declaring them fair game for theft. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:09am
And would you (and others) support filesharing of games from Steam? Since it doesn't affect sales and all? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:11am
Yes - THE BAND. And how much does the studio, the producer, and the composer get from t-shirt sales?
(hint: nothing) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:14am
They may have gone after a few major downloaders, but the focus has clearly been on the big sharers. Of course, the way P2P works, many sharers are not even aware that they share, but so be it. I am not aware of any high-profile case where the issue was only downloads without sharing.
Downloading would still be a copyright violation, of course, but a less egregious one. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:15am
|
Just to be 100% clear, if all songs on itunes were a penny, I would buy anything that entered the top 100. Never know what kind of stupid country song girls will want to turn on.
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:20am
Famous words spoken by many teenage punks when arrested for grand theft auto. "It costs too much" is not good cause for theft.
Mostly true, if not completely, but also irrelevant. Individuals have no right to software or music. If you can't/won't spend the money, don't get the software. That's capitalism for ya.
If you were never going to buy the software anyway, then the direct loss to the company is certainly minimal. That, of course, is a powerful argument against allowing filesharing for music. Seeing as how a song is $1, not $600.
And yet by that same logic, music downloaders are hurting the RIAA. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:22am
You're referring to a true story about the guy who invented intermittent wipers and licensed them to Ford right? They made a movie about that recently. Heh, I don't understand why people don't see how file-sharing is stealing. As others have stated, you may not be stealing physical property in this case but you are stealing intellectual property. No matter the effect of doing this, you are still stealing according to the law. This can't be argued, it's just a fact. However, I also agree that it should be legal so long as people do not profit from it (unless they have permission to sell). Common sense tells us that a product that is distributed for free loses its value and will no longer be profitable to sell. Surprisingly though, common sense is only half right in this case. People still buy CD's or download legally to support the bands they like even though they can often get the music completely free. There is also the fact that many people are only downloading it because they can't afford to buy it anyway so the record companies aren't losing potential sales there. In fact, they're creating potential revenue by allowing huge amounts of people to spread music around and increasing the fan-base of these bands. Like I said before, the only reason I know about many of the bands I listen to is because I pirated their music and liked it. I then went to their shows and spread the word about their awesomeness which created more fans for them. This force will likely counter any potential loss in sales that is created. It defies common sense but it does appear to be the reality of the situation. Another thing I want to mention is something that one of my teachers told our class (it was IT and the Law so it was very relevant). That post about Adobe CS2 reminded me of this. My teacher, when discussing this topic with the class, told us that some companies actual don't mind the piracy because of the fact that more people are introduced to their software. In the case of something like Adobe CS2, people will steal it for personal use and then get used to using it for whatever it is they do. Then, they go to get a job doing these things and they tell their employer they prefer to use Adobe CS2 for their work. The company will then go out and buy a legal copy of the product for their employees to use. Had they not initially pirated the software, they might have gone to something like Gimp which is a free, open-source competitor to Photoshop. There's no guarantee that things will work out in favor of the companies but there is still a strong possibility and I believe this will be how things will work out most of the time. I think these lawsuits are a result of companies either not wanting to change their business model to accomodate advances in techonology or they just want to get some easy money by suing people. Actually, it's probably a combination of the two. ------------- oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey Me: But only if they're hungary Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:26am
And why is that? Adobe et al often make cheaper student versions available, and you can of course use the copies on the school's computers, but if your Photoshop is pirated, then we are right back to where we started.
The sense of entitlement in this post (and, frankly, in this entire thread), is staggering.
You (collectively) are not entitled to cheap or free music, and you are not entitled to cheap or free software. Just because it is easy to steal does not make it right.
(Of course, in Canada downloading is a permitted use under local copyright law, but only for music. So Choopie isn't breaking the law when he downloads, but filesharing software is still illegal there as well.) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:29am
|
Well that's the weird part...society doesn't equate downloading music with stealing cars, or Adobe, or anything else. There's no stigma against it, and it's not taboo by any means. We're right here, talking about it in the open. I think this is in part because of our culture, and music's integral function within it. When you are young (too young to buy stuff), you hear songs on TV, at baseball games, on the school bus...everywhere. Once you get to around middle school, kids buy (or used to) CDs. Why? Because they want to be cool and have Eminem's new CD. When you get a car, turn 21, etc...you listen to music in your car, at parties, clubs, and recently...on the computer. However, with the advent of digital music, CDs have lost their appeal to the vast majority of people who only bought them to say they had them. Let's face it; most songs are crap. In the past, we had to buy a whole CD to be able to listen to that one hit song. Now we don't. So here's the thing. By and large, we (the 16-25-ish year olds) have been raised for 15 years of our lives without having to pay for the majority of the music we listen to. Now, we can bring it into our own homes without paying for it (key point - Napster and the like got there first. This whole age of digital music in your home was pioneered by illegal downloading). People use itunes and the like to supplement their music collection, not to create it. To the majority of people, it isn't a crime, it's just a logical progression. What we are seeing is an industry that people do not want anymore; it has outlived its usefuleness to a large extent. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:33am
Mack is not kidding, and he is not alone, and your analogy is thoroughly and completely flawed.
Here is a better analogy: You buy a paintball gun. The gun has this cool new loader attached to it, that turns paddles from excess air, so it never breaks balls. Let's call the loader the "Typhoon." You think that's pretty awesome, so you build a Typhoon for yourself, and a bunch for your buddies. Then you post instructions on the internet for how to build Typhoons.
Should the Typhoon inventor/manufacturer be upset? It's not like you went in and took Typhoons off the shelf.
And as to art on the internet: NO! You do not have a right to see art online without paying for it. Whatever gave you that idea? Most art that is not public domain is not available in high quality online, and for that exact reason.
You are not entitled to free art. Not free music, not free paintings, not free sculptures. Not online, not anywhere else. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:40am
Porn is a good example of this.  Also people may have gotten that idea because most great works of art have fallen into the public domain because their makers and estates are all long gone run on sentence. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:40am
Yes - and the kids that stole the car were just joyriding. They were gonna give it back - honestly, officer.
Rationalize all you want. You don't get to break the law based on ideology.
Not, it is not the equivalent. Not even close. Horrible analogy.
As I noted earlier, I continue to be astonished by the sense of entitlement here. This is my reaction whenever this subject matter comes up.
The simple reality is that most countries on the planet recognize and protect intellectual property, and they all recognize music as intellectual property. This has been the case for centuries, and the entire modern economy is built on the protections afforded intellectual property.
The fact that you are a major consumer of music does not allow you to pretend that intellectual property law does not apply to music. Claiming that it hurts nobody is to deny the underpinnings of our entire knowledge economy.
Oh, and inb4 "zomg a bunch of posts in a row." Deal.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 10:24am
If you'd read all my posts in this thread, rather just that one, I think you would see that I am one of those people. But that doesn't make it any less true that the vast majority of people in the 20 +/- 5 age range do accept filesharing.
I'm not saying it does -- what I am saying is that the RIAA shouldn't be trusted, because their business practices are not trustworthy.
Well, what we're saying, and what I think you should take away from this conversation is this: 1) There are always going to be people who fileshare. 2) In the highly unlikely event that they can wipe out filesharing entirely, it will probably cost significantly more money than they're "losing" already. 3) Instead of fighting filesharing, maybe the companies that are so worried about it -- especially the RIAA -- should change their business model, so that they actually attract these people rather than reject them. Maybe you don't get to break the law based on ideology, but since the vast majority of filesharers are not being prosecuted, and the likelihood that they will be is pretty miniscule, I'm gonna go ahead and say that they will continue sharing. Unsurprisingly, the law is being broken because it's easy to break it. And holy crap, 6 posts in a row. You know, there's an edit button? ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 11:59am
Sure, because I'm a pirate, but Steam has good enough copyright/ copy protection that it's not really an issue. The problem isn't JUST delivery method, but restrictions as well. Steam just lets you manage an account, and it does the rest for you. No serial numbers, no calling to authenticate, etc. Users in general HATE drm, but Steams works fine, and doesn't restrict gameplay, and makes the games quite difficult to pirate. Once again steam is a prime example of a company who has it right atm Again, should mixtapes be illegal? Should I not be allowed to bring my copies of games over to a friends house for him to borrow? If that's ok, why not his neighbour, and his neighbour? They all know each other. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 12:06pm
Many games on Steam are easy to pirate -- but mainly that ones that are available off of Steam. The popularity of Steam has definitely changed the way games are protected though. The number of games on Steam has risen significantly over the same period that copyright protection on games sold has begun to drop off. Now, that might be strongly related to Steam's own copyright protection, but not having to deal with Starforce when I play games is a big plus. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:32pm
I did see that, and my comment wasn't necessarily specifically for you. I should have been more clear.
This I certainly agree with - for that age range. But it is a long way from most in the 15-25 bracket to "most." That is still a minority of people overall.
Moreover, most people in that age bracket also think that pot should be legal, think that gay marriage is awesome, and think that they are really good drivers. They also think MTV is quality programming. This age bracket does not define laws or reality, but since this age bracket interacts mostly with its own members, it is easy for people in that age bracket to be completely clueless of how most people actually think and operate.
And, to paraphrase Stan Marsh: "Meanwhile, in the REAL world, filesharing is mostly frowned upon and disapproved of."
To the contrary, the RIAA's business practices are completely trustworthy: It is a rational, profit-seeking body. It is the kind of creature that capitalism is built around. It will use all legal means to protect its profits. That's pretty trustworthy. I am not aware of any illegal actions by the RIAA so far - unlike the filesharers, who intentionally continue to fileshare, KNOWING that it is illegal.
If anybody here is not to be trusted, it is the filesharers.
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed - but I do believe that anybody is expecting to wipe out filesharing completely, any more than Wal-Mart expects to wipe out shoplifting (aka "inventory shrinkage") completely. It's about profit maximization. When you hit the point of diminishing returns, you stop. This is basically the same decision faced by insurance companies when deciding whether to fight a claim or settle. Fighting is expensive, but if you always settle you continue to get raped. There is no correct answer, and different players choose different strategies - as they are entitled to do in a free-market economy.
3. Agreed again - I certainly agree that the current music production/ownership/distribution model is outdated and flawed, for many reasons, and we are in the throes of a paradigm shift. But this is also irrelevant. It is not for us to decide that the RIAA is behind the times and we are therefore going to steal their stuff.
Actually, ideology has a lot to do with it. Any one of us could break many, many laws on a regular basis without any fear of getting caught. Yet mostly we are well-behaved, and that is due to ideology - a belief that these actions are morally wrong. I fastidiously avoid driving for many hours after drinking any alcohol at all - not because I am worried about getting caught, but because I firmly believe that drunk driving (even below the "legal limit") is immoral. So I don't. On the other hand, I break the speed limit every day, despite the high likelihood that I will get caught (and I do). This is because I do not find my speeding morally objectionable.
Now, one could argue about the hypocrisy of my moral positions (and I expect that somebody will, shortly), but the bottom line is that it is morality/ideology that guides our behavior more than the fear of punishment. Otherwise we could never have enough cops.
Ironically, however, threat of punishment changes morality. I don't have numbers, but I believe that filesharing HAS decreased since the enforcement efforts began - at least outside of the 15-25 age bracket. This not because we are afraid of getting caught, but because the enforcement is a reminder that filesharing is wrong, and a reminder to check our moral compass. This gets internalized, and voila - our morality has shifted. This process is well documented for a variety of phenomena.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 1:59pm
That's a pretty odd response. You respect Steam for its excellect copy protection, but complain about DRM?
And it certainly IS an issue - the morality of the situation is exactly the same, regardless of your inability to complete your theft. If copyright violations are ok if they can be executed, you have basically declared copyright law void. And seeing as how copyright law is one of the foundations of our economy, yes it is an issue.
And again, your disapproval of the RIAA business model does not allow you to break the law. That is insufficient justification. Instead, I find your complaining about DRM practicalities to be further evidence of that entitlement.
I agree that DRM of all kinds is a pain. I hate when my computer tells me I can't copy my song onto my new phone because I copied it onto the previous two phones. But you know what? that's just the way it is. I can express my frustration as a consumer by buying less music, or buying DMR-free music, but I cannot and should not break the law.
And again, those are different entirely. The second example (lending your copy) is just silly, as there is no copying going on. Copyright law is mostly about just that: copying. There are some use restrictions, but mostly when you purchase a properly licensed copy of something, you are free to to use THAT COPY more or less as you want. This is provided for by law as well as the license you get when you "buy" music.
Could the law be different? Certainly. The law could provide that you were not allowed to invite friends over to watch cable TV. But the law doesn't provide for that. The "why" is complex, and would require more tiem than I want to spend, but rest assured that it is not random or arbitrary. Copyright law has been developed over the course of centuries, and is most assuredly not random.
Mixtapes were controversial when that technology first became available, but the law then and now generally provides for a licensee to make a backup copy for personal use. Making a mixtape for your own enjoyment is generally ok, but handing them out to others is probably a violation. But unlike filesharing, mixtapes do not really compete directly with music sales - at least not with yesteryear's technology. If you started making "mixtapes" today consisting of ipods stacked with hundreds of albums and giving them out for Christmas - then I suspect you would indeed have a problem.
All of these issues sit on the edge of "fair use." This was part of the issue when the movie studios sued Sony over the VCR back in the day. But the basic idea is that if you paid for it you can make a copy or two for your own use. Distributing copies to others has NEVER been ok - but older technology was so limited that it was never worth fighting until now.
Could the law change to allow some degree of P2P filesharing of copyrighted materials? Clearly, and I suspect that eventually it will. But simply declaring filesharing in general legal and ok would render copyright law mostly irrelevant and destroy many current business models. This will never happen. Instead, there will be tweaks and exceptions and limitations, allowing for the changing technology frontier while still protecting the rights of copyright holders.
Frankly, IMO, what Canada has done by generally allowing downloads for personal use mostly legal is wrong. It is an arbitrary exception that raises many questions of consistency and application, and was pure voter pandering. As a matter of legal policy it was a bad idea. A more logical and considered approach will ultimately benefit everybody. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 2:38pm
Other than the fact that you've stereotyped the age to the point where it is almost guaranteed to be incorrect, they also happen to be the major audience of the RIAA. I also don't see how Generation Y is any more exclusive in their relationships than anyone else. The fact that there is a generational mindset does not happen to be something new, or something I think requires disapproval. In 20 or 40 years, these are the people who will be defining America's values, whether people like it or not, so there can be a realization of change, or like the RIAA, become relics. P.S. No one watches MTV anymore.
The RIAA has a well documented history of essentially stealing from artists. Would you call that a trustworthy business practice? I don't, and it's one reason I don't think their model is one that people should acquiesce to. I don't think anyone needs to trust filesharers. Last time I checked, they weren't providing a useful service. But whether you trust filesharers or not, the fact is that stopping them is essentially impossible without a systematic change for the worse in the way ISP's provide privacy.
I would hesitate to believe that the threat of punishment "changes morality" -- perhaps imposes it, yes. Perhaps for you, enforcement is a reminder to check your moral compass, but by and large, enforcement is a threat. I'm inclined to lean more towards the idea that people will take everything they can get, given the chance, and enforcement is necessary to keep people from doing just that. Most people would say that prostitution, drunk driving, cocaine, and robbery are morally reprehensible (or just bad). Yet, these are significant problems in our society, and mostly carry serious penalties. People in older age ranges don't fileshare not because they are reminded of their moral compass, but because they have something to lose. Most teenagers aren't too worried about their employers finding out they're doing drugs, getting a DUI, or filesharing, since they don't have one. The consequences for most the laws that teenagers break in significantly larger numbers than their elders affect them far less than they would someone who had to pay off a house, a car, and who would likely face serious criticism from their peers. I do not know of any studies that have shown that enforcement causes a shift in mental compass -- they have only shown that enforcement causes changes in behavior. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 3:01pm
|
Other reasons for filesharing.... A person legally buys a CD album of music or software. Person listens to CD or uses software. Over time disc becomes scratched and no longer usable or sofware becomes corrupt. Should the person have to buy the same product over again? Another example. Radio buys premission to broadcast music. Radio uses advertising to generate money to pay for broadcasting permissions. Listeners record songs during broadcasts. Listeners than listen only to recordings. Or same thing with TV broadcasts and VCRs. Or Artist puts digital artwork on website, web users visit website, clicks print, hangs pic on wall. Or artist sculpts a statue and places it in park. Time magazine writes article about artwork and takes picture of said piece. Time publishes story and picture. Sells 100,000 copies of magazine. Or Person goes to library, checks out book. Patron memorizes book. Returns book. From memory recites book onto recording, gives recording to freinds or distributes online for free. Or photographer takes pic. 2nd artist alters pic, 2nd artst redistributes altered pic. I am not well versed in copyright law so if some or all of the above exaples are illegal under the current law so be it. But if any of them are legal then I feel that the whole system is flawed or changed so they all reflect the same thing and all equally enforced. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 4:55pm
A person legally buys a car. Over time the car becomes scratched, or the engine breaks down, and the car is no longer usable. Should the person have to buy the same product over again?
But anyway - you are allowed under your license to make a backup copy.
And that was the issue in the big VCR lawsuit in the 70s, and again in the DVR lawsuits just a few years ago. Basically, you (the viewer/listener) have a license that allows you to watch/listen. If you choose to use a device to "timeshift" that viewing/listening, that is fine, even if you FF past the commercials.
What is not ok is to make copies of that videotape for your friends, or upload it to the computer.
Is it your (collectively) position that I could pipe my cable TV feed through my computer straight to the web, and stream HBO live for everyone to see/record? Is that ok? If not, how is that different from filesharing?
Depends on whether the artist declares copyright. If not, he arguably waived by making it freely available. But if he declares copyright, then it would be a clear violation to print a copy for yourself without permission. Absolutely, and a slam-dunk win for the artist if he can find you.
This is why most art is not available online in high quality. Good luck finding a high-quality, unaltered digitial picture of Munch's Scream online, for instance. They are trying to protect against this type of piracy.
"Samples" for review purposes are a specifically named fair use under copyright law. Excerpts from books, small pictures of sculptures - all ok. But if Time includes a high-quality copy of a reviewed painting, or a digital copy of the entire reviewed book, then there is a violation.
Clear violation. Slam-dunk win for copyright owner.
Without permission, clear violation, and slamdunk win for copyright holder (subject to various fair use exceptions - this was the issue with the Obama "Hope" image).
As noted, some are legal, but most are not. And the exceptions are there for specific reasons, and those reasons are not arbitrary and have been developed and honed over a long time. Copyright law may be many things, but it is absolutely not arbitrary.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 5:07pm
Actually, all but the MTV jab are pretty well documented. Pot legalization and gay marriage are both far more accepted among young people than in the population at large. Drivers under 25 (particularly under 20) are the worst drivers on the road, in part specifically because of false confidence that they are good drivers. That's all old hat.
Probably also true - that is not a "Gen Y" observation but a "young people" observation. People under 25 are mostly in school, where they associate mostly with people their own age with similar belief systems.
Once you leave school, most people are exposed to a wider age range and belief range, thereby gaining a better understanding of the common views of society at large.
No disapproval intended. Just a simple observation that young people tend to incorrectly extrapolate their own views to the rest of society.
But during those 20-40 years, your attitudes and beliefs will change. In 1969, the young people were hippies living in communes while smoking pot. Now those same people have masterminded a war on drugs and voted to make gay marriage unconstitutional.
Yes, societal views change over time, and I agree that the RIAA is probably on its way out, but you are wrong to think that your generation is some juggernaut of change waiting to happen.
Stealing, or "essentially stealing?" I don't know what "essentially stealing" is.
This is a pretty central principle in cognitive-behavioral psychology. Eventually the reinforcement gets internalized, and the external reinforcement is no longer necessary. There is more to it than just punishment, of course, but reinforcement/punishment are certainly part of the process of changing a belief system. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 5:51pm
But, if you look at the percentage of people who really were hippies living on communes in the 60's, it's far lower than the percentage of people who support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana in the current generation of young people. If you don't think that marijuana or gay marriage will be legal in the next 20 to 40 years, feel free to continue thinking that. But given the direction that the law has been moving in for the past decade, I think time may well prove you wrong.
I don't know about a juggernaut of change, but if you're going to claim that American social norms haven't changed in the past 20 years, you'd be hard pressed to support it. I wouldn't expect any more change in the next 20 years than we've seen in the last 20 years. Just look at the last election -- a presidential candidate who catered strongly to young people, and who probably wouldn't have won without the actual work done by his mostly college age campaign workers around the country. They may not have been the decisive vote, but they were certainly key to running the campaign.
Well, I'll tell you: writing contracts so that artists give the vast majority of their money to the record label, and are tied to it as long as they'd like to continue in that line of work. Then using their influence and the massive amount of money they have to crush independent music. The RIAA, and American corporations on the whole have shown that they will take advantage of the law for as long as possible, and ignore morality to the greatest extent possible. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 7:01pm
Oh, I am pretty sure gay marriage will be standard pretty soon - well before 20 years. Pot has a tougher road, but it will probably get there eventually too.
But here's the point: gay marriage will become legal - IS becoming legal - not because of the 20-year-olds. 20-year-olds don't have any power.
Judges and legislatures - mostly white men in their 50s - THAT is who is legalizing gay marriage. And in ten years when the last state legalizes gay marriage, today's 20-year-old will be 30, and still won't be running the country. It will still be white men in their 50s legalizing gay marriage then too.
This change is not driven by the 15-to-25 demographic. That demographic doesn't drive anything (popular culture and consumer goods aside), despite what it thinks. The young demographic instead is a PRODUCT of the changing times.
Excellent example. The young demographic makes excellent door-knockers and pamphlet-hander-outers. How many members of Obama's inner circle were under 25? How about the outer circle? How many under 25 were participating in policy discussions, how many of the position papers were written by someone under 25?
Young people are eager, enthusiastic, and idealistic. All admirable qualities. But they wield no real power. By the time they get to wield the power, they have become what they dread: old.
Ah. I think the word for that is "business." Or maybe "free market." Or "negotiations." Or "capitalism."
As one of my mentors told me a long time ago, before a negotiation session: "Fair? I don't even know what that means. My job is to get the best deal possible for my side. I don't work for the other side. 'Fair' is meaningless." The artists are not treated any better or worse than anybody else in a business relationship. All of us capitalists take every opportunity to ruthlessly grab every advantage.
Nobody is forcing artists to sign up with the labels on their oppressive terms. They only have to sign if they want access to the massive star-making machine. Today more than ever, artists have plenty of other avenues to success.
But, in the end, when the studio says "I'll make you a star," the artists sign even though they know what they are surrendering, because they just want to get laid. And they would rather be a star under the thumb of the studios who gets laid every day, than be just another artist who "didn't sell out" but has to play Bar Mitzvahs on weekends for rent money. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 June 2009 at 7:17pm
|
Peter you may be unaware, but Canadians being allowed to download songs is/ was hardly voter pandering. Canadians have been paying a levy on all blank media since 1997. This money goes to the music industry, and allows us to then download music for our own use. We still pay that levy, go buy a tower of blank cd's for $10 and see what it ACTUALLY rings up at here.
Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio). In 2009 the levy on CDs and MiniDiscs will rise to $0.29. It wasn't just ignorant pandering to the voters, we have been paying for the rights for years. A stack of 50 cd's has an extra $10.50 on top of it that goes to them. And yes I complain about DRM while praising Steams system, because unlike DRM I hate, their system works. It is unobtrusive, invisible, automatic, and non-restrictive. The DRM I dislike is extremely obvious and evident, frustrating, and massively limiting. I am extremely unhappy that I cannot use my music as a ringtone on my phone. Yes thats "just how it is" but as soon as it is possible I will be unbranding my phone and using it however the heck I want, with whatever songs I want. I think it's absurd that I can't. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 24 June 2009 at 9:20am
|
Software should empower users rather than restricting or limiting them.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 June 2009 at 9:28am
|
stealing is wrong, and a crime.
I haven't purchased any music in 15 years... I have this nifty device in my car called a radio, and it plays music all day for free...
I also have an ipod, with about 5 old cd's I put on it... I use the headphones on my radio when I cut the grass, but the ipod has been sitting in the closet for years... ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 24 June 2009 at 9:57am
I'm not saying we drive anything right now -- but as I said, in 20 or 40 years, we will be. And if you want to write off the importance of referendums, as well as the fact that most members of state legislatures are relatively young (ie: today's 20-somethings will be legislators in 10 years), feel free. But everything so far shows that these people do have power, and are the ones driving change.
So what? No one expects 20-odd year olds to have the experience or knowledge necessary to do any of that. But if you're going to write off the importance of young people to the Obama campaign, you're wrong. Obama would not be in office right now without them.
I seriously doubt that most young people dread getting old. Most of us would probably not prefer to be old right now, but still.
More than a few artists -- NSYNC, for example -- have ended their contracts only to find that they owe millions to their recording company, and often enough the recording company makes more than they do. I'm no huge fan of the rockstar lifestyle, but the member companies of the RIAA take talented but naive 20 year olds (and, now mostly teenagers), and convince them to sign over all their profits. Independant music labels have shown that they can vault artists to the same level of success without taking all their money. These may be standard business practice, but most artists aren't confident young entreprenaurs, and even fewer have a business education. Saying it's "standard business practice" doesn't give the record companies the right to take advantage of them. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 24 June 2009 at 10:46am
|
Time for my handful of change here... If this woman hadnt acted like an idiot, but still decided to fight instead of folding, RIAA would have dropped the case like a hot potato. Read up on some of their other court battles, whenever someone technically savvy or at least has a good lawyer chooses to fight, RIAA runs. They dont want a precedent set, since they quite simply cant PROVE most of their accusations. These kinds of lawsuits are all small potatoes anyway in the grand scheme of things. RIAA and MPAA's end goal is to make it illegal for you to format-shift media. In other words, they want to make it illegal for you to take a physical CD you own and rip it to your ipod or whatnot. Why? Very simple, because they want to make you pay for something you already own a second time. Theyve been working towards that for quite a long time. Piracy is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to stop. Anyone who says otherwise is completely out of touch. DRM doesnt work. CD-keys dont work. Proprietary formats dont work. I wrote a paper in college on the sheer idiocy of copy protection. Think about it, you pay some company a few million dollars to write some protection system for your movie/game/whatever, and the instant you release it, you have millions of crackers all over the world busting down the door. And then someone breaks it, patches it, and distributes a program to rip your protection system off whatever its trying to protect. Congradulations, your business just paid a few million for NOTHING. It almost turns into a philosophical thing. Can a big hulking out-of-date orginazation ever be succesful against a numerous flexible bunch of very smart hackers? Nope. Anyone with half a brain would figure that out and look for a way to use that for their business model. You know what has historically had the most sucess against piracy? Giving someone something good for the legit deal. Example being multiplayer for a video game that needs a legit CD-key to let you play. You can pirate the game all day and play it by yourself, but when you hear your friends talking about how much fun it is multiplayer, you have to buy it. Honestly. Stick goodies in DVD cases instead of 1 piece of paper with the chapter list on it. Start putting real manuals in video games again. Include bonus stuff with music albums. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 24 June 2009 at 11:27am
| That reminds me of the 360 launch "It's completely unhackable" and was hacked in under 2 days. |