Author Topic: RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you. (Read 107227 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #50 on:** June 19, 2009, 05:25:55 PM »

If I was a recording artist I would sell physical media and merchandise. I don't have the moral balls to pretend that I 1. can and 2. am morally justified in using real force to extort money from a worthless product. Many bands now sell vinyl records, then give away mp3 downloads. XKCD doesn't charge to view the comic, but makes money selling merchandise.

that would be your right/choice you don't get to make that decision for folks who are gifted with the moral balls. if the product is worthless then why are so many of the young and the useless on campus downloading thousands of these worthless songs?

zahc · « **Reply #51 on:** June 19, 2009, 05:27:05 PM »

Quote

So programmers who write code have produced nothing, and have no right to dictate how that code is used, or to demand payment for it's use.

They are welcomed to try. This is why companies go closed-source and do the whole DRM, licensing, etc game. They are welcome to enter into contracts with people and if people break them they should be prosecuted. I don't think you can create in implicit contract that binds anyone who ever listens, views, downloads, copies, or does anything else with digital media, though.

Marnoot · « **Reply #52 on:** June 19, 2009, 05:40:13 PM »

Quote from: zahc on June 19, 2009, 05:27:05 PM

They are welcomed to try. This is why companies go closed-source and do the whole DRM, licensing, etc game. They are welcome to enter into contracts with people and if people break them they should be prosecuted. I don't think you can create in implicit contract that binds anyone who ever listens, views, downloads, copies, or does anything else with digital media, though.

All legalities and contractual issues aside, do you honestly feel morally justified in using the intellectual property of others without compensation? Only those who create physical products deserve compensation for their hard work?

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #53 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:34:19 PM »

zahc, you addressed the hypothetical photographer print question, but you didn't address my point, so let me elaborate.

The print isn't the copyrighted property. The photograph--the intellectual property--is what's copyrighted. If you want to take your position to its extreme, then I should be able to take any book, copy it, and sell my own printed copies. What about automobile designs? Can someone copy those and use them?

Balog · « **Reply #54 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:39:30 PM »

Given his position, he has to be against patents as well. If he's going to be intellectually consistent anyway.

FTA84 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:54:43 PM »

I think that patents expire in a time appropriate manner (what is it, like 7 years?).

Whereas, I think some copyrighted materials should expire sooner than they currently do (say computer software -- which, in intent, should be pattenable -- but because it is typed -- is copyrighted). It is lifetime + some #of years?

You probably won't get anything but mental gymnastics in trying to answer this question. They want free music because they feel it is unfare for the artists to make $XXX millions of dollars and that CDs aren't worth $8 a pop. They argue, they won't buy that CD anyway, so give them the free music. Odd -- if they didn't want the music, why are they taking the risk to steal it?

Balog · « **Reply #56 on:** June 19, 2009, 06:57:48 PM »

Oh, and zahc to answer your question, the difference between DLing it and not buying it, and just not buying it full stop is that in one case you end up with the product and in the other you don't.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #57 on:** June 19, 2009, 07:11:09 PM »

Quote

They want free music because they feel it is unfare for the artists to make $XXX millions of dollars...

If that's the case, then what about concerts? I remember when the top tier acts (Stones, Beatles, Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc) cost $4 to $10 a seat. Now you're lucky if you can get anything at all for under $100. But all you're buying is a worthless piece of paper, right? So why not just copy it and walk into the concert? It really doesn't make a difference, does it? After all, you can probably hear the music outside the concert hall and, if it's an outdoor concert, you can really hear it well beyond the fence, so no harm, no foul, right?

As I think about the penalty, I think of the IRS as similar to RIAA. There's no way that the IRS can audit every tax return, so cheating on one's taxes is easy and is unlikely to be discovered. To counter that, the government makes the penalties for doing so extreme, in some cases much more extreme than the taxable amounts being considered.

FTA84 · « **Reply #58 on:** June 19, 2009, 07:34:50 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on June 19, 2009, 07:11:09 PM

If that's the case, then what about concerts? I remember when the top tier acts (Stones, Beatles, Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc) cost $4 to $10 a seat. Now you're lucky if you can get anything at all for under $100.

I don't know where you get that number at -- I've seen a few top act bands for about $30/pop this year. The only time I've paid more than $50 was a few years ago at XFEST in Pittsburgh (atleast, I think it was still called that in 2003), and that was a fest with (atleast) two headlining bands and about 6 other smaller -- but not unknown acts. Unless you are quoting the stub hub / resale price, those things are through the roof because it is an unchecked form of scalping. Even Pearl Jam tickets for this years tour (I think they only have like 5 or something US dates) have a face value of less than $70 (Chicago show). Of course, everyone bought those tickets up and now sell them on stub hub for outrageous sums of money.

Anyway, the concert angle is usually the one that people who believe the music is free dish out. They won't try to beat security measures on the tickets. They claim the music should be free and the artists should make a living by performing.

P.S. Oh, BTW, you own your money. If what you do with it is your own business, then why can't you just copy it?

Werewolf · « **Reply #59 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:19:43 PM »

Quote from: Balog on June 19, 2009, 06:39:30 PM

Given his position, he has to be against patents as well. If he's going to be intellectually consistent anyway.

Maybe...

Most likely though is that Zahc is trying to justify his theft of intangible properties.

He knows its theft but is playing mind games with himself and us to justify it.

zahc · « **Reply #60 on:** June 20, 2009, 12:35:12 AM »

I'm actually much less of a downloader than most people my age. I don't download music; I listen mostly to vinyl. I don't watch TV at all, and I use netflix for movies. I guess I downloaded anime in college, but in that case it's the only way to get it.

Honestly it surprises me to see so much opposition to free market economics. I suppose price controls, tariffs, wage controls, and other such government regulations must be ok, too, if copyright is completely legit. They perform the same artificial market function of protecting the revenues of one entity (who would be upset if his products were valued fairly by the market).

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #61 on:** June 20, 2009, 12:46:31 AM »

Quote

Honestly it surprises me to see so much opposition to free market economics.

Free market economics? If I own something, I want to be paid for its use, and you use it for nothing without my permission, that's theft. The "free" in "free market economics" doesn't mean "free for the taking."

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #62 on:** June 20, 2009, 12:56:02 AM »

Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #63 on:** June 20, 2009, 01:00:47 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2009, 12:56:02 AM

Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.

Who cares. It matters not what an economist thinks about this subject, only what the artist/owner thinks about it.

Chris

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #64 on:** June 20, 2009, 01:18:33 AM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on June 20, 2009, 12:46:31 AM

Free market economics? If I own something, I want to be paid for its use, and you use it for nothing without my permission, that's theft. The "free" in "free market economics" doesn't mean "free for the taking."

Do you support copyrights/patents that are good forever? If something is theft today, why wouldn't it be theft ten years from now, or fifty, or a hundred?

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #65 on:** June 20, 2009, 01:37:09 AM »

Quote

Monkeyleg, I'm not sharing Zahc's viewpoint here, but I think it'd be fair disclosure to point out that there are several free-market economists opposed to copyright laws altogether.

Well, why don't we find the one who's had the most books on the subject published, take those books, copy them, and sell a couple hundred thousand copies on our own? I wonder if that economist would feel all warm and fuzzy about eliminating copyright laws after that?

Quote

...only what the artist/owner thinks about it.

I take it that you've never had to deal with copyright issues in order to put food on your table. I have, and it's a pain in the ass. But it's necessary to protect it if you're going to survive in photography or another "creative" field.

I'll give another example. In 1996 a Milwaukee agency was pitching some work to Coca Cola. The art director wanted something really wild and unique. I spent quite a bit of time coming up with some heavily manipulated images. The client loved them, and we were ready to go. I was told they were just going to use them on a few billboards, so I didn't address the copyright issue.

The shots were well received. They were also unlike anything else being done at the time. The client used the images everywhere, from billboards to packaging to point of purchase and more. I hadn't set forth the usage, and they rolled all over me.

I also got screwed out of 74 of the 100 hours I put in, but that's a separate story.

What was even worse than getting screwed on the hours was that the client had saturated the market with my images so much that no art director in the Midwest wanted to use a look and technique I'd spent a ton of time developing. It's extremely difficult to come up with something that nobody else is doing, but I'd done it. The problem was trying to sell it after the market was saturated with what I'd done.

But what the hell. Coca Cola got a real deal on the copyright issue, much like downloading music for free, and that's what counts, right? Or are big corporations not allowed to benefit from copyright abuse?

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #66 on:** June 20, 2009, 01:41:19 AM »

Fistful Savalas, I've never had to deal with copyright issues on an image for more than a few years, so I don't have the experience to address that directly. In thinking about it, though, I'm sure that the work of Ansel Adams, Irving Penn, and a gazillion other famous photographers are still copyrighted by their estates.

Let's look a little closer to home, though. How about if the Brady Campaign uses one of Oleg's images to bash gun owners? Is that ok? If it's not ok today, how about five years from now? Ten years? When is Oleg's ownership of his images less important than the desire of someone else to use them without paying for the use?

BryanP · « **Reply #67 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:14:18 AM »

Quote from: Fistful Savalas on June 20, 2009, 01:18:33 AM

Do you support copyrights/patents that are good forever? If something is theft today, why wouldn't it be theft ten years from now, or fifty, or a hundred?

And there's where our copyright system has been subverted. Personally, I think we should go back to the original 7 years with the option for a 7 year renewal for copyright. After 14 years your work becomes public domain. Copyright is supposed to be finite, but Congress (in the pocket of the media producers) keeps extending it. Granted, they could make it for "life of the artist + 1000 years" and that would still be constitutional, but it would be subverting the original intent.

I don't have a problem paying for IP, but I do admit that I download, primarily to "preview." If someone tells me about a musical artist I've never heard of I'll download an album and toss it on my ipod. If I like it I'll buy a copy. If I don't, I delete it. I have CD's still in the shrink wrap because I'm still playing the "preview" download files.

Iain · « **Reply #68 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:35:37 AM »

Quote from: BryanP on June 20, 2009, 08:14:18 AM

I have CD's still in the shrink wrap because I'm still playing the "preview" download files.

I suspect you'll be in the first circle of hell for that.

Lawyers from bolgia 8 of the 8th circle will be lobbying on behalf of RIAA representatives stationed in the 4th circle to have you moved straight into Satan's mouth. They'll settle for bolgia 7 of the 8th circle and a heavy fine though.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #69 on:** June 20, 2009, 10:07:20 AM »

Quote

Personally, I think we should go back to the original 7 years with the option for a 7 year renewal for copyright. After 14 years your work becomes public domain.

There are plenty of musicians who are still performing and recording songs they wrote 28 years ago, much less 14.

The medium of which something is created isn't the issue. Give me a hammer, nails, and a bunch of wood, and I'll give you an absolute disaster of construction. Give the same tools and materials to a skilled carpenter, and he'll build a good home that will last for decades. How long after he builds the home should his ownership of it expire? Seven years? Fourteen years?

If you buy the home, you're usually buying all rights to it, with no time limitations. If you want to have the freedom to do whatever you want with a piece of music, you can do the same thing: buy all rights. That's what Michael Jackson did with the Beatles' music.

Chuck Berry is still a very bitter man today because he got royally screwed on his contracts, and didn't own the copyright to his works. The Stones and countless other groups made millions of dollars recording songs he wrote, and he didn't get a dime in royalties.

I started dealing with copyright issues in 1978 and, along the way, was threatened, extorted and strong-armed. There were and still are plenty of whores in photography who will sell their work at ridiculously low prices and throw in all rights for free. I've had many, many agencies ask me to do work for them, but also ask that I cave in and give them all rights to the photograph. They could have worked with one of the whores, but they wanted the level of photography that I delivered, yet didn't want to pay the price. They'd stomp their feet, or sometimes even say, "you give us all rights on this job or you'll never work in this town again." Yeah? Well, * you, pal. This isn't "On the Waterfront," and you're not Johnny Friendly.

These agencies used almost verbatim the arguments I've seen in this thread. They were trying to sidestep the copyright issue so as to more fully line their pockets. For them it was a matter of greed at the expense of the photographers they were dealing with.

I didn't expect the same from people on this forum, though. I'm really and truly shocked.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #70 on:** June 20, 2009, 10:31:02 AM »

Quote

I wonder if that economist would feel all warm and fuzzy about eliminating copyright laws after that?

Considering the books I refer to are available for free download... heh.

BryanP · « **Reply #71 on:** June 20, 2009, 03:24:26 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on June 20, 2009, 10:07:20 AM

There are plenty of musicians who are still performing and recording songs they wrote 28 years ago, much less 14.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Limited times being the operant term. The idea is that artists should benefit from their work for a while, but then it becomes public domain for all to enjoy. If copyright holders don't like that then they should fight to amend the constitution, not subvert the intent by effectively saying "Infinity -1 is a limited time."

sanglant · « **Reply #72 on:** June 20, 2009, 04:20:55 PM »

100 years is just ridiculous, get copyright term limits back to earth and people will start respecting them again

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #73 on:** June 20, 2009, 06:44:18 PM »

OK, guys. I missed the part of this thread that mentioned 100 years for the copyright. That does seem extreme. I don't think anyone is howling because somebody is copying Bunny Berigan's version of "I Can't Get Started" today.

I do stand by my defense of copyright, though.

thebaldguy · « **Reply #74 on:** June 20, 2009, 09:39:08 PM »

The million plus award does seem quite a bit excessive in my opinion. I think that a fine in the thousands would be a little more appropriate.

Victims have been awarded much less for actual pain and suffering/death. My city limits lawsuits against the city by law to $350,000.00 except for civil rights violations which have no limit.

News:

Author Topic: RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you. (Read 107227 times)