Supporting the RIAA

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by horse-fly
I am sure most music sites dedicated to musicians have 30 samples that people can download. I have seen it on some site. So if you are going to sample something, try the artist's page, or even amazon.com.

Right. I get to listen to 30 seconds of a few of the songs off of a CD, at 20K/sec. Yeah, I really get a good idea of the songs that way .

The artist's site often is an option, however. I bought a CD due to the Artist's site having good-quality, full-length Mp3s.

[gaekwad2]

gaekwad2: Your analogy (or intellectual property, which, by your own description, is stolen - ironically) is cute, but way off the mark.

First of all, horse-fly is not charging for viewing of his remark, nor does Winamp's forums.
Secondly, no one gains anything by copying it, neither enjoyment or profit.

Yeah I should have written "stolen" in quotation marks to make it clear that it was supposed to be an ironic remark. *sigh*
You obviously decided to miss my point: If I copy something without your approval I'm not taking it away from you. The original is still there, the industry can continue selling CDs (and it does).

And it may be hard to grasp but copyright also applies to things that are given away for free.

Third, you reproduced only a snippet of the post, or the thread. You'd need to host this entire thread somewhere else to really have anywhere close to an accurate analogy.
...
I could go on, but I think that's enough, don't you?

So, by your definition, if I copied just one track off a CD I could even claim I wrote it and it would be OK?

If you buy Windows XP (a different, but mostly the same type of intellectual property), you're purchasing a license to use the software, and a physical copy. Microsoft actually separates these in some cases, as do many software companies. Record labels typically don't.

And that's supposed to be a good analogy?
If I install Windows I have to agree to their EULA.
So far there are no seals on CDs with license agreements on them (at least where I live).
Microsoft makes it quite clear that you only own the right to use Windows on one computer unless you buy a special license.
So far this is not the case for music CDs.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
If I install Windows I have to agree to their EULA.
So far there are no seals on CDs with license agreements on them (at least where I live).
Microsoft makes it quite clear that you only own the right to use Windows on one computer unless you buy a special license.
So far this is not the case for music CDs.

I'm fairly certain that if you had to 'install' the music there would be a limit as to how many times you could. Just like some of the download sites limit you now (like Napster).

[MegaRock]

Well get ready, the RIAA has decided that their 2+ Billion dollar industry can't pay for it's fight so they want us to:

The RIAA and MPAA are pulling out all the stops to convince the state Attorneys General to go after file sharing applications. After being handily defeated in their quest against P2P applications such as Kazaa in Federal Courts, the lobbyists would now like states to consider action against such software on the grounds that they harm consumer interest. This represents a new strategy for them, because the states have no jurisdiction in copyright infringement (unless, of course it gets criminalized), but they are charged with protecting the health of their consumer markets.

"P2P networks pose tremendous piracy problems ... but they also pose very substantial threats to consumers," said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and general counsel for the Washington-based Motion Picture Association of America. [...] Attaway also suggested the state prosecutors might have a case for protecting businesses like movie theaters and video stores from P2P software companies under state unfair competition statues. P2P software providers divert customers, affect jobs, he added.

The argument, essentially, is that P2P applications are a threat to the local economy, and that their real usage is for piracy. But the state can't look after piracy per se, because it's not their purview. So while the jury is out on copyright issues that are in quite a state of flux (see post coming above), they hope that the states will divert their resources from other issues towards P2P applications.

...we're......losing......(cough)...control....must....continue.....screwing....the...consumers....

[gaekwad2]

the lobbyists would now like states to consider action against such software on the grounds that they harm consumer interest.

As opposed to drm, which is just what consumers need.

Orwell would be proud.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
So, by your definition, if I copied just one track off a CD I could even claim I wrote it and it would be OK?

No, but if you took 30 seconds (a snippet) of a song (a post), off of a CD (a thread), that would probably fall under "fair use", and would be legally and morally acceptable, though the legal side is, really, unknown.

Originally posted by gaekwad2 And that's supposed to be a good analogy?
If I install Windows I have to agree to their EULA.
So far there are no seals on CDs with license agreements on them (at least where I live).
Microsoft makes it quite clear that you only own the right to use Windows on one computer unless you buy a special license.
So far this is not the case for music CDs. [/B]

It's true that if you install Windows, you have to "agree" to the EULA, a very iffy legal concept (contracts after-the-fact of purchase are illegal). In actual fact, you can't install Windows and use it on more than one PC even if there weren't a EULA, unless that was part of the implicit agreement.

It is very plain when you purchase a CD that you can't copy it and start selling the copies, even though many will not say anything to that effect on them. Clearly, you're not buying the music, you're buying a license to use the music, just like software.

It's like this: you can do anything with a physical thing that you buy. You can make copies of it (assuming it's not patented), you can destroy it, you can do whatever you want.

However, the intellectual property is something you can't just do whatever you want with. In fact, if you were to purchase a cd *only*, you couldn't do anything with it, legally. You couldn't even listen to it, if you explicitly bought a CD without a license to use it. CDs implicity come with a license, just as software does - just because software has a "EULA" doesn't mean jack shit, just as most disclaimers serve to do nothing more than prevent people from thinking they can sue - they can sue anyway, and in many circumstances, still win, regaurdless of the "disclaimer".

There is software sold as *CD only*, by the way. You purchase the license seperately.

[gaekwad2]

CDs aren't covered by any license.
They fall under basic copyright.

[horse-fly]

"Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws."

What gives you the right to give the music for free?

[gaekwad2]

And because it's illegal it's morally wrong?

[horse-fly]

It depends on which laws are being broken, and for what reasons.

[MikioZen]

lol you dont understand that the artists are payed... they are payed to play live.. which many people go to see...they get payed to make a tv appearence.... why do you ask? no clue.... THEY GET FREE CLOTHES.... THEY GET thousands of dollars in gifts for goign to award shows... they get payed to make a appearence in movies... its not like they really need the money... and im sorry to tell you but.... there sales werent even plummiting when mp3s were free...they spend more money then needed... sorry to say. yes they work hard... but a million is sufficent for hard work... when you get into the 100millions it gets unneed. a human in america can live off of a dollar a day ( true fact ) think about that. there is a reason why people live on the street. their dollar goes to record sales.

[xzxzzx]

I was going to wait until later, when I had time to post a complete post, but I can't wait:

MikioZen, are you a moron or simply illiterate? Ever heard of a "paragraph"? "Sentance structure"? "Punctuation rules"? "Capitalization" (not the YELLING kind)?

Even if you're completely right (which you're not - for instance, many, many artists barely break even on a record deal), no one cares because you don't appear to be able to hold a particularly legible discussion anyway.

By the way, how exactly would a person live on $365 a year, assuming he doesn't already have a farm?

[whiteflip]

If people can live off a dollar a day how come I dont see more employers offering salaries of 30 dollars a month? I doubt people can live off 1$ a day in America.

[xzxzzx]

Shit, you could barely eat off of $1 a day (unless all you ate was raw rice - then $50 will buy you all you need for a year), much less have shelter, clothes, etc.

[horse-fly]

@MikioZen So because they are rich (those artist who are rich, I mean), they don't deserve what is rightfully theirs?

I could live of a dollar if everyday where 29 cent hamburger day at McDonalds.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by horse-fly
[B]I could live of a dollar if everyday where 29 cent hamburger day at McDonalds.

You mean you could eat off of a dollar a day?

[horse-fly]

I live 30 minutes away from Venice Beach. I could live there, and just 29 cent hamburgers. That is how you make the most out of that dollar.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by horse-fly
I live 30 minutes away from Venice Beach. I could live there, and just 29 cent hamburgers. That is how you make the most out of that dollar.

Shelter? Showers? Water? Clothes? Medicine? Not to mention that it would be illegal to stay on the beach.

[horse-fly]

There are plenty of homeless shelters there. I worked in some before. They are some pretty cool people.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by horse-fly
There are plenty of homeless shelters there. I worked in some before. They are some pretty cool people.

Yes, but you're not living on $1/day then, you're living on $1/day + cost of homeless shelter.

[horse-fly]

Touche. All my dreams of being a bum just went down the crapper.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by horse-fly
Touche. All my dreams of being a bum just went down the crapper.

Too bad. I think you'd make a good crazy bum, but I think I might out-bum you. Ya never know who'll really make a good bum, though. Bumming is like a box of chocolates.

[squakMix]

Originally posted by MikioZen
lol you dont understand that the artists are payed... they are payed to play live.. which many people go to see...they get payed to make a tv appearence.... why do you ask? no clue.... THEY GET FREE CLOTHES.... THEY GET thousands of dollars in gifts for goign to award shows... they get payed to make a appearence in movies... its not like they really need the money... and im sorry to tell you but.... there sales werent even plummiting when mp3s were free...they spend more money then needed... sorry to say. yes they work hard... but a million is sufficent for hard work... when you get into the 100millions it gets unneed. a human in america can live off of a dollar a day ( true fact ) think about that. there is a reason why people live on the street. their dollar goes to record sales.

Jesus. I have never seen someone use so many Ellipsis's in one sentence...

I counted Twelve.

[whiteflip]

I think everyone is missing the point here. McDonalds should bring back 29 cent burger days. That way people who live off a dollar a day, or would like to live off a dollar a day could stock up seven dollars for the week and go to McD's and buy a whole lotta 29cent burgers.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Man, does anyone remember McD's Dinner for under a dollar ad? sniff!

[Phyltre]

After listening for quite awhile, I've decided to weigh in:

1. Capitalism is mostly anarchy, with money determining your social weight.

2. Part of capitalism is breaking the laws when you disagree with them morally. That's what the colonists did, and what countless other like-minded groups did.

3. Copyright was originally meant to benefit individuals, not corporations. Using a monopoly system to force artists to sign their rights away is distorting copyright, and therefore I have no respect for any such law.

4. The law is not inherently good. It is not the ultimate moral scale, as some seem to think.

5. Everyone knows CD sales haven't dropped, so what losses are the RIAA trying to get back?

6. Whenever prices get too high for something, people will always work around it however they can. Maybe it's not legally right, but that's what happens. Price gouging leads to theft and piracy. (That's why it's illegal to charge too much.)

7. It is illegal to charge too much by creating a monopoly system or by artificially bloating prices. Therefore the RIAA has no right to sue anyone, anywhere, anytime. But it's morally wrong, too, isn't it? So what's their reasoning again?

The law is not what should be running our lives; our own conscience is. That is why we broke off from Royal rule in the first place. No law can dictate conscience, though it can dictate consequence.

Legality, capitalism, and morality are THREE different things.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Phyltre, on points one and two, I would say your confusing capitalism with freedom.

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Phyltre, on points one and two, I would say your confusing capitalism with freedom.

Originally posted by Phyltre
...with money determining your social weight.

On point two you're right, it should rather be: Part of capitalism is breaking the laws when you can make profit that way.
Or even being forced to do so if your competition does it and gets away with it.
(Or if you have enough money you just buy Orrin Hatch.)

[horse-fly]

If the RIAA is a monopoly, then you should sue them. I would like to see someone try to do that, seriously.

[CaboWaboAddict]

I seriously doubt anyone with enough cash to do it would have the motivation.

[zootm]

Their actions are clearly monopolistic. It's a pity no-one can really take them on about it.

The most shocking thing I saw was them paying radio stations not to play non-RIAA music...

[xzxzzx]

So why can't someone get the justice department to take them on? I mean, surely the RIAA isn't more immune than Microsoft is.

[CaboWaboAddict]

I doubt they have caught their eye. What they are doing is very subtle - if you are not into music.

[MegaRock]

Microsoft has been sued for monoploistic practices three times and walked away all three times an intact company and with no noticable loss.

The RIAA has some powerful lobbyists in DC also. Most noticable was a few months ago. Sen. Orrin Hatch was at that point somewhat against the RIAA, so the RIAA gave him an award and a nice vacation down on a beach and the good Senator came back with a whole different outlook. He's now totally PRO RIAA.

These big companies are no different. Face it, it would be nice to have cars under $15,000.00. It would be nice to buy a beer at a baseball game for under $10.00. It would be nice to have gas 75 cents a gallon. We don't get it that cheap because there are no other alternative ways to get it which means you pay whatever they want you to - worth it or not.

Microsoft paid people off in DC. So did the RIAA. So has so many other corporations it's sick.

[horse-fly]

Here is the funny part. You elected those politians.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by horse-fly
Here is the funny part. You elected those politians.

Actually, no. I don't vote for utter morons but they still seem to be there.

[whiteflip]

I voted for Nader.

No one can sue the RIAA for monopolisitic practices because they aren't a monopoly. They are a group representing several companies. I don't know of any laws against oligopolys or political intrest groups that can be effectively used to put the RIAA in check.

[MegaRock]

They are the group representing the monopoly...go figure...

[Phyltre]

At some point I would say that I am considering "capitalism" and "freedom," because capitalism entails financial decisions (and the freedom to make them based on supply/demand principles.) I cannot see how one would easily exist without the other, and therefore consider them as and refer to them as an inclusive pair.

[zootm]

Originally posted by whiteflip
No one can sue the RIAA for monopolisitic practices because they aren't a monopoly. They are a group representing several companies. I don't know of any laws against oligopolys or political intrest groups that can be effectively used to put the RIAA in check.

That's exactly what antitrust legislation is supposed to avoid. That's why it's called antitrust, in fact (it was brought in to stop price fixing and other monopolistic practices by coalitions of large companies in certain industries, which called themselves trusts, a major one was the beef trust).