RIAA has got it all wrong

[Joe DeFuria]

BTW, now I'm waiting for the "SWW" retort...

 

[notAFanB]

And it WAS stealing. (Making a tape of a record that I did not own.) I don't do it anymore, and I don't make excuses for having done it in the past.

that is correct. how do you feel about making custom complisation on tracks you already own? can you sell your original copies? what about backups?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

that is correct. how do you feel about making custom complisation on tracks you already own?

I don't have any problem with that (nor do I think it's illegal.)

can you sell your original copies? what about backups?

If you mean sell your original copies while you still have and use the compilation of custom tracks, then that's wrong.

 

[London Geezer]

i think that 99% of people downloading and burning CD's KNOW that it is wrong, still they do not care.
Personally, i only download live version of songs (be it video or MP3) of which i already own the original version in one form or another, which arent available on the market. i would never download an MP3 of an original song simply because to my ears, the quality i get from a CD is unmatched by MP3's. and especially because listening to music on a PC kills it completely...
if all those live versions were available on CD or (better) DVD, i would rush to the shops and buy them.

 

[notAFanB]

If you mean sell your original copies while you still have and use the compilation of custom tracks, then that's wrong.

pretty much, what happens when you lend out your original to a friend (unclear whether this is technically legal or not) and you pop a backup/complilation into the tray to kill some time? you can't find the original but you'll lend him/her a backup for the weekend, etc.....

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i think that 99% of people downloading and burning CD's KNOW that it is wrong, still they do not care.

Agreed. This is why Natoma's stance perplexes me...every time he states it.

 

[Sonic]

Ok, so downloading CD's from the internet is wrong and illegal. Gotcha on that one, it seems many people know it. Does it mean they will stop? Not really. The point the RIAA is trying to make is that the people downloading the music are the real criminals. Please give that argument up already. More than 70% of music piracy comes from people buying burned copies from piraters out on the streets or from people they know. Now does the RIAA do anything about that? I suppose not, since they're so busy bullying internet downloaders and not going after people who sell physical media that's their biggest problem.

And another thing, screw the RIAA. They should change their tactics and their ways of doing business. The artists really don't even get chump change from the record sales. It's a wonder why the record companies are getting sued left and right after practically stealing the artists' money earned from album sales.

And you want to know my personal theory on why music sales are going down the drain? Perhaps it has to do with the the majority of music being sold is drab and useless.

As for people downloading a single ccopy of a song because not wanting to go buy the whole CD for it. All the songs should be available oninle for purchase, or they should sell every song as a single on 99 cents physical media.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

pretty much, what happens when you lend out your original to a friend (unclear whether this is technically legal or not) and you pop a backup/complilation into the tray to kill some time? you can't find the original but you'll lend him/her a backup for the weekend, etc.....

IMO, lending the original to a friend, and then playing a copy of it yourself while your friend has the original, is wrong. Dunno the technical legalities of it.

Basically, any time you have a situation where two different people in two different places could be listening to some combination of original and copy, is wrong.

If you lend a back-up to a friend, because you can't find the original....I don't see a problem with it. (This is one of the reasons you make a back-up in the first place...if something happens to the original. ) This is no different than just lending the original to a friend.

 

[davepermen]

there's a difference between legally right, and.. right.

i do the right thing, as i pay for what i think its worth to pay, and i don't pay whats worth a cent.

i don't to the legally right thing as i download stuff first to see if its worth the money or not. but i prefer to be illegal then than to buy cd's i don't like to listen to, playing games i don't have fun, using software that is not useful for me.

and espencially those illegal music downloads made ME buy cd's. the internet is THE source for "other" music, non-mainstream music. here i can find everything, listen to it, and judge if i like to buy it. this is not the case in any radio or tv channel, where we only hear the same hitrotations most the time.

RIAA is based on a imho corrupt music business, who doesn't care much about music, but about their own profit. what we see as pop, and top sellers, is marketingpushed garbage, way off from what could sell, too..

i am against the todays music business. i just want good music. and yes, i do pay for that.

i don't pay for anything else, though.


and yes, i'm legally wrong. but else, i'm right. and if RIAA wants to sue me, they get a problem. i live in switzerland, where it is all even legally right, heheheheehehehehe

i life in a free country. not in one where big companies can force the country to take their way of "right" as the only right. music business is wrong, and only in political wrong countries they can get legally right with the way they act.

i always pay and honour good work. as i want the same respect by others. the internet, illegal sources are till now the BEST way to actually get to such work. no wonder everyone uses it instead of the legal ways..

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Ok, so downloading CD's from the internet is wrong and illegal. Gotcha on that one, it seems many people know it. Does it mean they will stop? Not really. The point the RIAA is trying to make is that the people downloading the music are the real criminals.

They are criminals.

Please give that argument up already.

There is no argument, it's the truth.

More than 70% of music piracy comes from people buying burned copies from piraters out on the streets or from people they know.

Dunno how true that statistic is or not...but what does it matter?

Now does the RIAA do anything about that? I suppose not...

Really? How many times has RIAA (or record companies) tried to implement "copy protection" schemes into CDs? And then they get ripped for doing so, of course.

since they're so busy bullying internet downloaders and not going after people who sell physical media that's their biggest problem.

Come on...you really think they're not going after the traditional pirates as well? And do you really think that "traditional pirates" pose the ultimate threat? Ironically, Internet downloaders pose the same threat to the "traditional pirates" that they do to RIAA. I

And another thing, screw the RIAA. They should change their tactics and their ways of doing business.

And I'll bet you'll cheat and stel from the same people you claim to be fighting "for" (the artists) to do it, right?

The artists really don't even get chump change from the record sales. It's a wonder why the record companies are getting sued left and right after practically stealing the artists' money earned from album sales.

I must be a prophet.



So transparent. Fighting for the artists...when we all know all you're figting for is your own selfish insterests.

And you want to know my personal theory on why music sales are going down the drain? Perhaps it has to do with the the majority of music being sold is drab and useless.

Oddly, that same drab and useless music is being pirated on the internet. I guess there must be some demand for it, eh?

I don't think RIAA would be suing anyone for downloading music that RIAA does not own the rights to. What are your thoughts on this?

As for people downloading a single ccopy of a song because not wanting to go buy the whole CD for it. All the songs should be available oninle for purchase, or they should sell every song as a single on 99 cents physical media.

You know, I just HATE having to pay for all these "standard" features in todays cars that I don't really give a toss about...so I guess I'll just steal the car instead.

 

[notAFanB]

IMO, lending the original to a friend, and then playing a copy of it yourself while your friend has the original, is wrong. Dunno the technical legalities of it.

what if he forget to return it and you want to put it on for a party/leisure/blah?

Basically, any time you have a situation where two different people in two different places could be listening to some combination of original and copy, is wrong.

oh dear

If you lend a back-up to a friend, because you can't find the original....I don't see a problem with it. (This is one of the reasons you make a back-up in the first place...if something happens to the original. ) This is no different than just lending the original to a friend.

what happens whenthe original shows up? ........er u can see where I am going with this os I guess I'll stop here.

the thing I am concerned with is the usage conditions that are afforded me when I purchase a product/service. as tech marches on I am beginning to get rather muddled up in the technicalities.

i don't to the legally right thing as i download stuff first to see if its worth the money or not. but i prefer to be illegal then than to buy cd's i don't like to listen to, playing games i don't have fun, using software that is not useful for me.

so you want it all and be sole judge of who gets your 'charity' then? gotcha.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

there's a difference between legally right, and.. right.

Agreed.

i do the right thing, as i pay for what i think its worth to pay, and i don't pay whats worth a cent.

If I'm reading that correctly...that is not the right thing.

The right thing is paying for the package at the price it is offered you, or not buying the package at all. It is certainly not right to use something without paying what the SELLER thinks it's worth.

and espencially those illegal music downloads made ME buy cd's. the internet is THE source for "other" music, non-mainstream music. here i can find everything, listen to it, and judge if i like to buy it. this is not the case in any radio or tv channel, where we only hear the same hitrotations most the time.

If the business model allows you to "preview" the music before buying, that's great. If it doesn't, then that's a risk you'll have to take. If you don't want to take the risk of buying a whole CD because you don't know "what the other tracks sound like"...then don't buy it. And if enough people agree with you, the alternative business model will win out.

RIAA is based on a imho corrupt music business, who doesn't care much about music, but about their own profit. what we see as pop, and top sellers, is marketingpushed garbage, way off from what could sell, too..

Blah...blah....blah...if you don't like the music...don't buy it. Problem solved.

i am against the todays music business. i just want good music. and yes, i do pay for that.

i don't pay for anything else, though.

By that, I hope you mean you also don't LISTEN or USE anything else.

and yes, i'm legally wrong. but else, i'm right.

I disagree.

i life in a free country. not in one where big companies can force the country to take their way of "right" as the only right.

In my free country, companies can charge and package their goods howeverthe hell they want to. That's freedom. And I am free to buy or not buy said pacakge.

I don't cosider a country "free" if that means companies are held hostage by people stealing their stuff. Thats not real freedom, it's anarchy.

music business is wrong, and only in political wrong countries they can get legally right with the way they act.

As opposed to "politically right" countries that support or legalize theft?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

what if he forget to return it and you want to put it on for a party/leisure/blah?

Is there and end to your scenarios? I think I covered everything with the following:

GENERAL RULE:
Basically, any time you have a situation where two different people in two different places could be listening to some combination of original and copy, is wrong.

oh dear

Oh dear? What is wrong with the concept of "pay for each copy that can be used simultaneously?" That is pretty much the basis for your music store selling separate copies to customers...

what happens whenthe original shows up? ........er u can see where I am going with this os I guess I'll stop here.

See above.

If you gave away or sold the copy, and the "original shows up", the right thing to do is to destroy it....or buy another copy if you want to use it.

the thing I am concerned with is the usage conditions that are afforded me when I purchase a product/service. as tech marches on I am beginning to get rather muddled up in the technicalities.

As above. See "General Rule" which should help you through the "technicalities."

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Just to chime in here,

I have said it before in the other RIAA threads, but I will say it again.

Right is right,
Wrong is wrong.

If you take a track from someone that says you cannot have it you are stealing. It is theirs, not yours. You have zero rights to it. It is all rather simple (to me).

1] The law says it is stealing, so with regards to the law it is stealing.

2] My personal morals say it is wrong, so with regards to my morals it is wrong.

I see how you can argue #2 as many people have different morals than I do, but I don't see how people can argue that the law does not consider it theft.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. I understand how many people do it, yet feel it is not right. What I find interesting is when people say they are doing nothing wrong.

 

[notAFanB]

Is there and end to your scenarios?

nope, I think about it alot.

Oh dear? What is wrong with the concept of "pay for each copy that can be used simultaneously?" That is pretty much the basis for your music store selling separate copies to customers...

that's not what I meant. I just find it amusing that in the event that I lend a copy to a friend for the weekend and the original/second backup shows up that I cannot listen to it to be strange and yet correct.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

that's not what I meant. I just find it amusing that in the event that I lend a copy to a friend for the weekend and the original/second backup shows up that I cannot listen to it to be strange and yet correct.

It is indeed correct.

It's not really strange if you think about it this way:

If you never made any copy at all, and you lent the original to your friend...under which circumstances could you then listen to the tracks from that CD?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

PS. I understand how many people do it, yet feel it is not right. What I find interesting is when people say they are doing nothing wrong.

Not to beat a dead horse...but this is exactly what "fascinates" me about Natoma.

 

[notAFanB]

If you never made any copy at all, and you lent the original to your friend...under which circumstances could you then listen to the tracks from that CD?

on the branches just outside his room most likely.

Not to beat a dead horse...but this is exactly what "fascinates" me about Natoma.

I must confess to not understanding his line of reasoning although I understand his reasons for doing so.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you never made any copy at all, and you lent the original to your friend...under which circumstances could you then listen to the tracks from that CD?

on the branches just outside his room most likely.

Heh...

To be clear, here are the scenarios off the top of my head:

1) You go over to his house, and he's playing the CD
2) He comes over to your house and brings the CD
3) You hear those tracks being played on the radio
4) You buy another copy.
5) Some other friend lends you his CD.

There are further "technically interesting" things with respect to number 2...let's see if you ask the right question about it.

 

[Natoma]

It's taken you this long to realize that I don't think taking individual tracks or getting my friends to make me a mix tape, or making mixes for my friends is stealing?

No, I am just utterly shocked every time you repeat it.

You shouldn't be.

If I thought it was wrong I wouldn't do it.

Again, exactly the point. It clearly IS wrong...if in no other way than legally. Can you admit that what you are doing is in the very least illegal? Whether or not you "think it's wrong" in some moral sense?

Why do I have to admit this? Is it in the law books?

As I said, there's a reason I have over 200 CDs.

Which is completely irrelevant.

Not in the least.

I also happen to own over 250 DVDs with another 150 coming...

Also completely irrelevant.

Considering the ease with which I can get those same DVD quality films online, it is not irrelevant at all.