So, if I can find a “study” which says you would not be harmed if I borrow your car when you are not using it, does that make it okay for me to take your car even if you don’t want to lend it to me? How about having a party in your front lawn?
Not that I really want to get sucked into this (again) or anything, and IANA copyright lawyer, but:
I think that if you register your work with the US Copyright Office, you don’t have to prove damages in order to collect. Everyone owns copyright automatically on anything they create, as soon as they create it, but when you go the extra mile to register it (which you know the RIAA has with all this stuff) then proving actual monetary damages is not an issue. All you have to do is prove that they did indeed violate copyright and you can collect something as a way of a penalty or punishment.
That’s my understanding of it, anyway. I’m sure this can be verified elsewhere, but as I’ve said before, I’m too tired . . .
Well, my friend, you clearly have no understanding of Canadian copyright law. It’s not illegal to make a copy of something. For example, it’s perfectly legal for me to lend a CD to a friend, and for my friend to rip it and burn a copy. The CRIA and various groups agreed to this, in exchange for a levee on blank media. By extension, it’s also legal for me to leave an .mp3 on my server and grant a friend ftp access to it. P2P is basically the same. Unless I’m advertising or charging, I’m not breaking the law. Or so says the judge, who I should think knows a lot more about Canadian copyright than you do.
No, the judge said what I had in my quote, with respect to the distribution aspect of the case, which I will add to here.
This is the only point I’m arguing. You are, of course, correct on the copying aspect of the law, which I was ignorant of. With respect to distribution, here’s what I’m getting at.
First, over P2P the remote person is not using your copy of the song, in the way someone might borrow a CD. Your computer is receiving a remote request, reading your copy, creating a new electronic copy of that file and sending that new file across the internet. Note, that this new copy is not for your personal use, it is for someone else’s personal use. They are not picking it up, YOU are sending it. That sure as hell sounds like your computer is making a copy and distributing it to me.
With respect to advertising, someone you don’t know, have never talked to or communicated with in any way, shape or form, can somehow (by magic, apparently) find your computer and request the exact file they’re looking for. How the fuck does that happen if you’re not advertising the files existance and your willingness to give away copies? Sure, you’re not setting up a billboard, but you’re sure as hell getting the word out somehow.
In short, by loading kazaa on your computer, and putting songs in the shared folder, you are actively setting your computer up to:[ul]
[li]advertise the existance of copyrighted material on your PC[/li][li]advertise your willingness to give away copies of that material[/li][li]receive remote requests for files[/li][li]make additional copies of those files[/li][li]send those files to the requester[/li][/ul]I think that’s a clear positive act that does exactly what the judge says there is no evidence of. The judge is acting like all these steps happen passively without anyone’s knowledge.
Gee, when an album gets popular, both downloads and CD sales go up! I can jump to the conclusion that that means all those people downloading wouldn’t have gone and bought the album anyway. :rolleyes:
“From a statisical point of view” these people need to understand what correlation means and what conclusions you can draw from it.
Here’s something I’ve never seen touched on. If the RIAA (and I’ve railed against them repeatedly on these boards) are so interested in lost compensation, how much of these fines are kicked back to the bands? You know damn well the first 2 in line for the suits are the RIAA and the lawyers.
Yes, the RIAA gets a cut (even by proxy) from the bands they purport to represent. Let’s assume the lawyer’s get a cut. (Not too hard to assume that, huh?)
How much goes to the bands from these fines? They’re making the music.
It’s like a class-action lawsuit where the lawyers prey on people hurt/killed by a product, the lawyers make millions, and the victims receive a few thousand dollars apeice. Folks, it ain’t about the bands, it’s about the RIAA getting paid.
Therefore, I reject the RIAA in anything on my own principle. (You’ll just have to trust me when I say I buy more CD’s than I download, and those are bought because I discover new stuff through P2P)
FWIW, so far the RIAA can only go after US-based companies that support P2P.
Actually, it’s about reinforcing the impression that file-sharing is illegal. The scale of the lawsuits and settlements thus far is so tiny that the chance they represent profit is nil. Even assuming they do make a net gain, you’re basing your presumption of what happens to the money on your own prejudices. RIAA = evil therefore RIAA keeps the money. RIAA keeps the money therefore RIAA = evil. It’s all very nice and circular, and no actual facts involved. But hey, if it makes you happy.
Good thanks :). Man, I guess I really ought to reply more to other debates, eh…
While I’m sure the RIAA is happy it found a new revenue stream, but if you are saying it ain’t about the band, it’s ONLY about the RIAA getting paid, then they need to wait in line. There is a long long line of people fucking over the artists and the RIAA is at the end of it.
Yeah, I see your point. But for some reason I just have a hard time sympathising with them over the lowly bands losing money from P2P networks. Bands that will never see the money either way.
An example or two. After hearing Bring Me To Life I bought the Evervescence CD. After hearing Hott in Herre I passed on that album.
Guess where I heard them? The radio.
Yes P2P isn’t the same as commercial radio, but I don’t try, attempt nor hope to make money on ANY band’s music.
With the Liberal Talk Channel (Air America I think it’s called) it’s only available in 6 markets and on satellite radio. If someone in Frisco records it and makes it available to someone in Minneapolis, how is that stealing since the Minnesotan doesn’t have access to it? OK, so the Minnesotan (or any market dweller) can get it on sat radio, why be limited to such a small niche? And why limit the listeners to only those that can afford the equipment?
I realize this is a rather weak argument, but you get my drift. I hope.
Yes, please do, we could your wisdom in plenty of other threads. I’ve found you have a knack for saying exactly the right thing.
Or at least what I think is the right thing which means you may have some issues. 
Shoot, thought I had that idea expressed. I don’t condone copyright infringement (sp?) when it comes to the artists. Like I said, I buy a lot more CD’s now that I can sample some stuff to justify the $18 or so per album. The RIAA is just suing to pad the bottom line. When they give the fine monies to the artists, I’ll support them.
What I would fear is the bands themselves suing P2P users.
A) It’s their choice where they want to air it.
B) if there’s a demand, then people will get sat radio
C) if there isn’t the venture will fold
D) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
E) if there’s a demand, then people will get the product
F) if there isn’t demand the venture will fold
G) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
H) repeat E,F, and G
[quote]
I realize this is a rather weak argument, but you get my drift. I hope./QUOTE]
No it’s not, at least you’re making some sense.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
A) It’s their choice where they want to air it.
B) if there’s a demand, then people will get sat radio
C) if there isn’t the venture will fold
D) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
E) if there’s a demand, then people will get the product
F) if there isn’t demand the venture will fold
G) Someone will attempt the same thing, and be mindful of how and why it failed before
H) repeat E,F, and G
I won’t parse this because I’d like to get it all in one reply, sorry for the full quote.
A. No, it’s the choice of radio station programmers, the satellite stations run seperate from what we all get on our radios. If Clear Channel decides to carry it, we can hear it. Or Westwood One, etc.
B. There has been a seeming demand, note Alan Colmes’ show, Jim Hightower, among others. They may still have programs on radio, but not with the coverage they used to have. (Tinfoil hat people, those shows crashed and burned during Clinton’s administration, not conspiracy)
C. See B
D. See C & B
E. If it makes money in a few markets (let’s stick our necks out and say Berkely and Boston) the signal will be pirated over the internet. (we all know this would happen, being justified as getting the truth out)
BTW World Eater, stop being anti-duffer. You’re scaring me.
Shit, meant to say pro-duffer :rolleyes:
(See how much that freaked me out?
I’m working under the assumption that a radio show chooses which stations it allows to pick up the show. If Oprah is being courted by 5 networks, she gets to pick which one she’ll sign with right? Perhaps radio doesn’t work that way, I don’t know.
Colmes is the guy on fox with the fucked up looking head right? If so the other guy Hannety (sp?) is a real cockswipe. I’ve thought about writing him to go argue with him on his show.
As far as the other people you mentioned, I never heard of 'em.
Well the people that use such justification to pirate something are wrong. (I know you aren’t saying they’re right btw)
Boo!
Lawrence Lessig, a copyright attorney (I believe) & professor @ Stanford has just ‘published’ his newest book: Free Culture:
It can be purchased in the traditional ‘intellectual property’ sense (Published by Penguin)
Or
It can be downloaded, free of charge. People are already editing it, adding to it & distributing it - Kind of like an electronic work in progress that never gets stale and continues to evolve.
ARRRGGGH, maybe YOU (or someone else here) can tell ME. I have the top of the line CDRWs (two of them) in a custom built computer. I have the newest version of Adaptec, and it absolutely REFUSES to rip songs from CD onto the computer so that I can burn them back onto other CDs.
After several frustrating sessions, and I’m normally QUITE computer savvy (though a lousy typist:D, (I set up and maintained my former company’s computer network, not to mention being damned good with every softward program from AutoCAD and GIS to the normal office ones), I finally gave up and said “FINE. It’s taking more time struggling wtih the damn CD copying program than if I just downloaded them”. At any rate, I had already BOUGHT the songs I was downloading.
Which IS one of my points. Why do they make the files so hard to reformat and rip? I’m not the only person that’s had this problem with CD copying programsl It PRETENDS it’s translating your CD file format to mp3, but then you end up with a tiny little 1KB file that is NOT an mp3, even though it tries to masquerade as one.
If they want us to pay for the music AND the media, then damnit, get it INTO The stores, or onto the internet. Have stations in Sam Goodies, where people can plug in their mp3 players and d/l songs for a buck, or whole albums for 12.99 (or whatever the pice is, again, I usually only buy them at Pawn Shops, where they’re usually only 5 bucks or less and never had a bum CD yet).
They, the RIAA and musicians are all whining and moaning about how this technology is “stealing” their work. Well hell fellas, it’s been around for QUITE a whiile now, perhaps we should JOIN IN??? Get out there and MARKET available mp3 files, perhaps your album on some sort of mp3 insert.
Errrg sorry, stepping off of my soapbox. And again, as for the more obscure songs, on many of them I’ve searched in vain for the whole CD, and many are too old, or too obscure, or too much of a “one hit wonder” to have been put in that format. On at least 20 of those types of songs, I only had luck finding them at Kazaa.
[quote]
As far as the one or two good song excuse, it’s about the lamest I’ve heard. Do you think an artist sets out to make one or two “good” songs? That’s just fucking silly.
[quote]
I can name two, one I actually did buy new, back when they cost 20 bucks, it’s TLC the only good song on the entire CD is “Waterfalls”. The rest is just horrible.
Salt and Pepa, same thing, only I bought that one at a garage sale (funny how hip hop and rap seem to make up the majority of Pawn Shop and garage sale fodder). It had ONE good song “Push It”. The rest was terrible.
Well, that’s very nice that YOU make sure you do that. But what an artist may thing is “THE BEST” stuff, the audience may NOT agree on. Just because you record music doesn’t automatically imbue you with impeccable taste in all things musical.
Again, while the ARTIST may be laboring under the delusion that every thing he does is pure gold, that does NOT make it so.
And it’s not about “Oh, two songs on this album are genres that that customer doesn’t necessarily care for.”. It’s about quality, plain and simple. Are you trying to say, that if a musician manages to get 11 songs (or however many) on an album, then that, merely by virtue of him having worked hard and gotten them there necessarily means that it’s ALL the BEST, most wonderful music in the world? Even if an album has 1 good song, and the rest aren’t necessarily horrible. In what other industry does the customer have to accept mediocre product along with the good?
Um,NO you can’t. Find me the SINGLE for the Vega Boys “How to Dance”. No? How about the single for “Sing, Sing, Sing”? Not that single either? How about the Cartoon’s “Hot Potato”?(and trust me, I spent 5 hours going to, or calling every record store in Anchorage looking for JUSt those songs).
How about the theme song for “Gilligan’s Island”? Or the theme from “Jaws” (both of which I used on a CD for my water aerobics class). Didn’t see that one either. Not the single. They did have several TV themes CDs, but not ones which had the themes I needed on one CD, and not for a reasonable price either. OH yes, I also visited the pay for tunes sites looking for these same songs.
Well NO DUH sweetheart, and that’s EXACTLY what’s happening here. And actually, in answer to your question “do I determine the price” Well, yes, I do. ME and my fellow consumers, Just as YOU pointed out.
The price and the product aren’t meshing for the consumer, so guess what? The consumer is going elsewhere. According to the RIAA, people AREN’T buying, well, THEY’VE got two choices, they can shut up, or they can PUT UP.
And by putting up, meaning join the 21st century, and produce easy to use and get mp3 files for sale.
The one in which you lined out the “degrading tape” scenario? Yes, I did. All that means though, is that with the old “Filesharing” (so to speak), all that means is that less music was “stolen”. Again, the music industry’s beef is with people taking advantage of current technology.
Okay then. Come up to speed on it. Market it and take advantage of people’s love of technology. As well as their love of choice.
No one’s arguing that different TYPES of music may appeal to different people. I’m sure there are plenty of people who like lima beans too. But when you go to a fine restaurant, you aren’t forced to pay for lima beans in order to have the rest of your steak dinner., and if you want apple pie for desert instead of chocolate, you can have that too. For a price.
You’re not getting things free, but you ARE getting the things that you want.
If a person likes musical steak, but doesn’t like musical lima beans or chocolate, why should they be forced to buy the lima beans and chocolate too?
Again, the consumers HAVE spoken, in droves. And if the RIAA is that concerned iwth their “bottom line” rather than being right, they’d get with the program. They can continue to bang their heads against the walls with their pathetic cries of how they’re getting ripped off (yeah, right, don’t see it based on all the so called bling bling the artists are always displaying), and how “evil” and wrong it is for consumers to steal their music, OR, they can use the consumer’s love of convenience, internet speed, and musical choice to their advantage.
The ball is in their, and the artists’ court. They can sue a small percentage (and how much really are they going to get from a 19 year old in jersey who works at Mcdonalds for instance?), but they’re not going to stop the tide. Time for them to learn how to surf it instead.
Not to hijack this thread, but IIRC, the folks behind Air America originally wanted to purchase radio stations in their initial market cities, because they didn’t want the conglomerates to control their programming (such as scheduling Al Franken between Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage). Unfortunately, they couldn’t do that, either, because most of the stations have already been bought by those selfsame conglomerates (thanks to loose FCC regulations on media ownership), and weren’t for sale. As it is now, Air America is leasing air time from smaller, second-tier stations in their initial markets – the Los Angeles affiliate is 1580AM, and I can testify firsthand it’s a spotty signal to catch.
So, no, it’s not a simple case of picking where you want to broadcast and handing over the bills. If ClearChannel doesn’t want you on the air, you’ll have a hard time getting there.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I don’t want to get into it but there are tons of free mp3 encoders available on the net, look them up.
Hint hint, the music is already in the stores.
This pretty much defeats the whole reason for internet distribution. Why the hell would I go all the way to the record store to download something. Isn’t the whole point that I can get my music in my own room?
They’re whining and moaning about that, well, because it’s true.
This is something we could talk a long long time about, and I have a lot of different feelings about this stuff. Extremely short version, as a musician I feel mp3s are great for promotion, but I don’t know how I feel about selling my album on the net.
Too bad downloading them from Kazaa is illegal.
Both of these had singles available, which you could have bought for a fraction of the price of the album. As far as the rest of the album being terrible, an important distinction to remember is that you found them horrible, not they were horrible, like it’s some type of fact. There are millions of people that managed to enjoy many of the other songs tracks on the albums.
Of course it doesn’t imbue me with anything, that’s besides the point. Your sitting here ranting about how today’s music is crap, and how people need to start writing good music to get your almighty dollar. First off today’s music isn’t any worse then music from any other time, so throw that out. Second, the artists are writing music they feel best represents them. If you don’t like their stuff that’s fine, don’t buy it. If you want to listen to it, pay for it.
It’s not a delusion, the artist is simply doing their best to put out what they feel is a quality product, because they take pride in sounding good. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, and if you do, then pay for it.
No I’m saying that it’s silly to say there are 2 good songs, and everything else totally sucks horse balls, therefore I shouldn’t have to pay for the whole thing. The person most likely put equal effort into each song, and if you don’t like the majority of the album, perhaps you shouldn’t buy another from the artist in the future.
[quote]
Even if an album has 1 good song, and the rest aren’t necessarily horrible. In what other industry does the customer have to accept mediocre product along with the good?
What industry is there where all the product is 100% good?
Well first off, stop listening to such weird ass music, maybe that will help. You’re right I took a look around and really couldn’t find anything. Just because you can’t find it anywhere doesn’t give you the right to download it for free.
Ok, now your starting to go insane here. I’ll take a guess that the reason the reason no such thing exists is because there isn’t a huge market for CDs with the Gilligan’s Island and Jaws theme on them.
I’m all for this, just not downloading illegally.
Yes, less music was stolen, exactly the point.
Yes, because it enables people to steal more music, duh.
When you order a dish at a restaurant you pay for the meal, which usually comes with more then one thing on the plate.
You can have anything for a price, even your very own Gilligan Island & Jaws theme mix CD signed by Rupaul.
What the fuck are you even talking about anymore.
Musical steak?
They are suing to scare people to stop downloading, not to recoup fictitious financial loses.