RIAA has got it all wrong

[Natoma]

sorry to jump in, but Joe, have u NEVER in your entire life recorded something on tape from a CD? u know, the 80's and the 90's...

Yes, I have done that a few times.

And I was wrong to do it. (Edit..and furthermore, I knew EVEN THEN, that I was wrong to do it.)

Thief.

when u had to record on tapes..... u've never done that? by your logic that would be stealing.

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.

Thief.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You shouldn't be.

It appears I'm not the only one here that's perplexed or "interested" in your stance that it's not wrong. Perhaps this is an indication that just maybe, there's a reason for it.

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

It just shows your contempt for the law in this matter.

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

It's completley irrelevant. Your buying any number of CDs, DVDs, or anything else doesn't have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of stealing.

All it does is further your case for you "paying for what YOU believe something is worth", (vs. what the sellers believe it is worth) which we already know.

In other words, you only buy those products that you and the seller come to agreeable terms on. That's fine.

But stealing products simply because you DON'T agree on the terms? That's not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Thief.

Thief.

Agreed. Next?

 

[notAFanB]

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

hmmmm....is it the issue of public broadcast with intent? *rubs forehead*..

or

he's here to bludgeon me to death for giving barbies greatest hits by mistake?

You shouldn't be.

Joe isn't allowed to feel shocked?

 

[Natoma]

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.

Why should that fascinate you? Have you ever jaywalked? Do you feel like a criminal?

Have you ever recorded a television show and made a copy for one of your friends or family even though they say explicitly this broadcast is not to be redistributed or rebroadcast? Do you feel like a criminal or think of yourself as one?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

hmmmm....is it the issue of public broadcast with intent? *rubs forehead*..

or

he's here to bludgeon me to death for giving barbies greatest hits by mistake?

Lol...Nope, that's not it!

It's this: What if your friend to whom you lent the CD comes over...but DOESN'T bring the CD....

Can you "rightfully" listen to your copy?

There are arguments both ways.

I'd respond like this: if there is no reasonable way that the original copy that was left at your friends house would be played by anyone else, then it'd be OK to play your copy. (For example, your friend lives by himself, the CD is at his house, and no one else is there.)

However, if it's likely that someone else could be playing the CD (say, your friend actually lent it to someone else...) it would be wrong to play the copy.

As you can guess, there is gray area and judgement to be made here.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Why should that fascinate you? Have you ever jaywalked? Do you feel like a criminal?

I know that it's wrong..

I know that Jay-Walking laws have a purpose...they are there to protect me, (and drivers). I know that if I Jay-Walk, and a cop tickets me, my response would be "sorry."

My response wouldn't be "I didn't do anything wrong."

 

[notAFanB]

Ah right, cept I assumed (2) case the CD belonged to him, which explains my Oro Oro?

Can you "rightfully" listen to your copy?

no, you gave up that right (really don't like that word) when you set out a copy of said media without retrieval.

There are arguments both ways

that's half the fun. the best part is when you put on a backup to chill to and suddenly realise that you've just stepped into the twilight zone of content usage.

if there is no reasonable way that the original copy that was left at your friends house would be played by anyone else, then it'd be OK to play your copy. (For example, your friend lives by himself, the CD is at his house, and no one else is there.)

ah the reasonable man objection I see.

As you can guess, there is gray area and judgement to be made here.

yes and consequently the issue of intent pops up here just to give the lawyers something to fight over.

anyway it will be interesting to see how the RIAA intends to deal/handler distribitable content and usage restrictions as we move forward.

Why should that fascinate you? Have you ever jaywalked? Do you feel like a criminal?

I FEEL GUILT......*stops shouting*

EDIT:

I should probably add here that I have no idea what Jay walking involve...well except the walking part.

 

[Natoma]

Wrong is a judgement based on one's personal morality on a particular subject.

Illegal is a judgement based on adherance to a particular law.

I know making mix tapes for my friends and giving mix tapes to them is illegal but I do not think it's wrong. I know jaywalking is illegal but I do not think it's wrong. I know recording tv shows and giving a copy to friends and family is illegal but I do not think it's wrong. Hell up until a few months ago me having relations with my bf was illegal but I do not think it's wrong.

All laws have a purpose behind them. Whether you agree or not with that purpose is your own personal judgement. And in my personal judgement, giving copies of my music to my friends and vice versa and downloading individual tracks is not wrong. Is it wrong to download a good chunk of an album and not pay for it? Yes I believe it is. Is this subjective? Indeed it is. Is this something that could be applied to a vast swath of people? Certainly not.

 

[Natoma]

Why should that fascinate you? Have you ever jaywalked? Do you feel like a criminal?

I FEEL GUILT......*stops shouting*

EDIT:

I should probably add here that I have no idea what Jay walking involve...well except the walking part.

Jaywalking is when you cross the street when you do not have the right of way. For instance, oncoming traffic has the green light. You're supposed to wait until oncoming traffic is given the red light, then you can cross. If you cross while "oncoming traffic" has the green light, even if there's not a single car on the street, you have jaywalked.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Wrong is a judgement based on one's personal morality on a particular subject.

Illegal is a judgement based on adherance to a particular law.

notAFanB said it best:

"I feel guilt."

If you don't feel at least some twinge of guilt for copying and playing music that you didn't pay for....that is what fascinates me.

I know jaywalking is illegal but I do not think it's wrong.

If you jay-walk, and then a car swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting you, and two people are killed...would you think it's wrong then?

 

[Fred]

Dubbing isn't illegal, in fact the supreme court decided on that. In their eyes, the right of ownership of a music cd gave enough leeway to make an inferior copy for a friend or relative.

They were probably eyeing practical reasons, like the explosion of lawsuits and the difficulty enforcing said law.

Regardless, right or wrong is going to be contentious. I can be extremely intransigent, and say 'anything that is illegal in the eyes of the law is wrong', since we are all under tacit oath to abide by the laws of the land. In which case all of us are criminals, since we have at one time probably broken the speeding limit, gotten a parking ticket, etc etc

Assigning degrees of 'wrongness' is where it gets logically hazy, particularly since the 'law' has somewhat arbitrary standards for assigning punishment as well (different states carry different laws, as well as logical inconsistencies). Take lewd and lascivious behaviour, which can range from having sex with your wife with a window halfway open, to being topless etc etc. It carries maximum prison times, far in excess of what we are talking about here (the theft of a few mp3s)

So while I sympathize with those who take the moral and logical high ground, be careful of intransigence..

 

[notAFanB]

If you jay-walk, and then a car swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting you, and two people are killed...would you think it's wrong then?

if we are to follow the line of reasoning laid down here then the answer is ....no. why?

Have you ever recorded a television show and made a copy for one of your friends or family even though they say explicitly this broadcast is not to be redistributed or rebroadcast?

ah copyright laws, up until a few years ago I wasn't even aware that this was a prosecutable offense. so yes I can pretty much say that I've done this before.

enough leeway to make an inferior copy for a friend or relative.

I like this idea but the ball is (almost) entire in their court *shrugs*. er what intransigent?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Dubbing isn't illegal, in fact the supreme court decided on that. In their eyes, the right of ownership of a music cd gave enough leeway to make an inferior copy for a friend or relative.

Is there a reference to that?

Heh...even if that's legal, I still think it's wrong.

In any case, the digital age changes the whole "inferior copy" aspect, and is what really has the entertainment industry worried.

I can be extremely intransigent, and say 'anything that is illegal in the eyes of the law is wrong', since we are all under tacit oath to abide by the laws of the land.

Agreed.

This is why I think notAFanB's "feel guilty" comment was most apt.

Assigning degrees of 'wrongness' is where it gets logically hazy, particularly since the 'law' has somewhat arbitrary standards for assigning punishment as well...

Agreed there too.

However, "theft" is "theft." Theft is a legal definition. Natoma objects to being called a theif. The fact that he may not feel like one doesn't change the fact that he is one. If he objects to being called a thief, then he should consider his actions.

So while I sympathize with those who take the moral and logical high ground, be careful of intransigence..

Duly noted.

 

[notAFanB]

regarding:-

'anything that is illegal in the eyes of the law is wrong'

and

Agreed.

This is why I think notAFanB's "feel guilty" comment was most apt.

of course if you don't feel guilty about it and it does bother one that much then thankfully there are mechanisms of change available. the law is most certainly not set in stone, but you're gonna have to come up with something a little better than 'I feel it's wrong'.

Anarchy should almost never be considered except in extreme circustances. that and Cheese.

 

[Natoma]

Wrong is a judgement based on one's personal morality on a particular subject.

Illegal is a judgement based on adherance to a particular law.

notAFanB said it best:

"I feel guilt."

If you don't feel at least some twinge of guilt for copying and playing music that you didn't pay for....that is what fascinates me.

If you define the wish to purchase music online and hoping beyond hope that the music companies finally provide that so I can pay for it as guilt, then color me feeling guilty.

I know jaywalking is illegal but I do not think it's wrong.

If you jay-walk, and then a car swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid hitting you, and two people are killed...would you think it's wrong then?

Anyone who doesn't look both ways before crossing the street is an idiot and is definitely in the wrong, whether they have the light or not.

 

[notAFanB]

If you define the wish to purchase music online and hoping beyond hope that the music companies finally provide that so I can pay for it as guilt, then color me feeling guilty.

that's self justification Natoma not guilt.

I had a similar isues wrt to UK release to videogames (well that and the outragesly unaffordable prices hey where going for when they finally got here).

I imported.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you define the wish to purchase music online and hoping beyond hope that the music companies finally provide that so I can pay for it as guilt, then color me feeling guilty.

No, that's not guilt. That smells like selfishness.

Anyone who doesn't look both ways before crossing the street is an idiot and is definitely in the wrong, whether they have the light or not.

OK...then by that logic...let's just get rid of traffic lights all-together then. And let's get rid of cross walks too while we're at it...

Everyone do what they please...but just "look out" for others....

 

[Natoma]

If you define the wish to purchase music online and hoping beyond hope that the music companies finally provide that so I can pay for it as guilt, then color me feeling guilty.

that's self justification Natoma not guilt.

I had a similar isues wrt to UK release to videogames (well that and the outragesly unaffordable prices hey where going for when they finally got here).

I imported.

I've done the same with videogames, i.e. import. There is no such option for music.

 

[Clashman]

As a bit of an aside,

If you feel a law is unjust and there are not proper means in place by which to address or change it, then I wouldn't consider breaking that law to be immoral or "wrong".

It was illegal to smuggle slaves away from plantations. It was illegal for Indians to resist British occupation. It was illegal to join the underground movements in Nazi Germany and Vichy France. It is presently illegal for people old enough to go to Iraq to fight, die, and kill, to drink alcohol or smoke pot. (BTW, I do neither). Just as it was illegal for people to oppose Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq up until recently. That doesn't mean that doing any of it is "wrong".

Right and Wrong are social constructs, just like everything else. Some of them are there for good reasons, IMO, but tying right and wrong to law is something completely different.