RIAA's BIG win

Discussion in 'Politics & Ethics of Technology' started by epicstruggle, Oct 5, 2007.

  1. SugarCoat

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    State of Illusionism
    I think its really unncessary to argue this route because pirating music is exceedingly common. To say they snagged an honest person really isnt needed cause its probably true and she did, its the amount that is the real problem. As i said a fine of a few thousand would of got the point across. If you downloaded songs illegally, got nailed and fined a few thousand you'd quite problably would never do it again. I know a number of the major TV networks dont jump on you and go for the throat if they catch you downloading your favorite shows, but instead contact your ISP and have a letter forwarded to you simply telling you to cease and desist which seems like a much better way to go about it.

    I'd also be willing to bet the majority of those who do use p2p for songs dont exactly wipe their asses with money; course the fines suggest otherwise. Also whether she legitimately owned the media she was pirating or not, the same law was broken. The copywrite law is incredibly strict and you can violate it everytime you back up an mp3 or even burn them to a disc or put them onto your mp3 player. Its written in such a way that if you own it on your computer (say from itunes), as a file, thats what you have. You cant move it or copy it, even to back it up, not that anyone should pay attention to it because its incredibly stupid. Every time you copy a song, either to another folder, HDD, or player/disc, they view it the same as if you started pumping out copies of the new DVD you bought.
     
    #41 SugarCoat, Oct 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2007
  2. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,895
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    PA USA
    Are you sure I thought there was something termed fair use. Doesn't that allow you to copy your own cd?
     
  3. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    8,723
    Location:
    Cleveland
    It sure does, though the RIAA/MPAA would have you believe it doesn't exist.
     
  4. Tim Murray

    Tim Murray the Windom Earle of mobile SOCs
    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    66
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    it's possible to negate fair use by equipping the CD/DVD with a copyright-circumvention technology, because then you have to break the DMCA in order to exercise fair use.
     
  5. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    8,723
    Location:
    Cleveland
    In that case, wouldn't it place the onus on the RIAA/MPAA, since they broke the law first by circumventing Fair Use?
     
  6. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    8,482
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Treading Water
    Has the DMCA been tested on that grounds at the supreme court level?
     
  7. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,517
    Likes Received:
    8,723
    Location:
    Cleveland
    I do not believe so. The only times I'm aware of the DMCA being tested is in lower courts. Even then it was in times of obvious abuse, usually when its used in ways it wasn't intended to be.
     
  8. Rainbow Man

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    In front of the PC.
    So they could promote quality over quantity instead of pumping out loads of cheap crap if expenses actually was a problem for them.

    Howeveer I argue this realyl isn't the case.

    Btw this situation can probably compare to the videogame crash of 84.
    Companies puhs a lot of rubbish out onto the market. People notice what they're being asked to buy is pure trash. They don't buy. Sales fall, companies' profits go down.

    Difference is today, companies have a convenient scape goat to blame. MP3 players and internet pircy.

    They can pretend they themselves have no partin the arisen situation.

    And "a bust" doesn't mean the music label didn't make a profit. They most certainly did in almost every case due to the way their contracts and royalty schemes work etc. And they hardly blwo countless millions and millions on promoting every newcomer either.

    They just didn't create a lasting phenomenon but rather some one-hit wonder type that either few can remember after a couple years or nobody will ever know what other tracks that person recorded.

    So I don't bu ythat argument for a second.

    A train car mechanic for example will allow millions of actually working people (as opposed to most pot smoking pop/rock star types) to ride to and from their jobs, enable people to go shopping and bring home their wares etc.

    REAL productive stuff.

    But does the pay reflect this? :cool:

    Face it. Pop stars are paid obscenely merely not because of some nebulous "entertaining and motivational value" but merely because of the percieved glamour involved. Nothing more.

    *Ahem* Speak for yourself matey.

    You're talking about something completely different than what I did.

    Hence, your standpoint basically is:
    A - Artists get paid when they're played.

    B - Artists get paid because when artists get played, they get paid.

    B feeds back into A. Congratulations, you justcreated a circular argument.

    However, what I actuall ytalked about was, WHY should they be paid in this fashion? You (in your eagerness to make a personal jab at me)completely passed over that aspect.

    And you called MY post "sheer idiocy"? :roll:

    Perhaps not.

    They do with installing it and assembling and maintaining the piping though.

    I could be a handyman and fix my own throne when it breaks down. I still don't pay Mario and Luigi every time I flush.

    I'd actually buy that argument if Madonna came to my house and fucking sang her song every time I hear the music of one of her CDs coming out of my radio, but she don't.

    She recorded it once, why should she be paid a million times over for work she's already done, years (if not likely decades in fact in her case) ago?

    Peace.
     
  9. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Why do people keep feeding this punk troll?
     
  10. Zengar

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait a moment... She has to pay 9k $ per SONG just for hosting them in a filesharing network without a proof that she actually had this files stored on her computer? Sorry guys, but the jurisdiction system in USA is just broken...
     
  11. thehulk

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    SOS Brigade Club Room
    Apparently, fair use = stealing, Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"
     
  12. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,276
    Likes Received:
    1,788
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Which punk troll? :|
     
  13. weaksauce

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's odd. So even if no one downloads it, it's still against the law?

    On the other hand, wether one downloads or shares doesn't matter, since there can be no sharing without downloading. Both are part of the crime.

    Lol, so if I want to play a song on my mp3, I have to "steal" it? :lol:

    They should stop making Walkmans.
     
  14. Scott_Arm

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    13,277
    Likes Received:
    3,726
    I guess so expects you to repurchase the album in mp3 format? I guess these crooks think we're stupid.
     
  15. weaksauce

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    2
    In that case you have to download it directly to the MP3 or cut out and paste.

    Cut or Copy is the difference between crime and not crime.

    They should get one of those Chinese Virtual Police to keep track of offenders.

    Or maybe microsoft can implement a new paper clip:
    "Make sure you Cut and not copy and paste the album to your mp3, or else I will sue you!"
     
  16. Zengar

    Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I see it, the questions of "media ownership" are somehow complicated. First of all, one needs to make clear whether a customer purchases the song, or if he purhcases the license to hear the song.

    If the first is true, the particular song is owned by a customer. And to own something - this has a long tradition - means being able to do anything with it when it does not harm anyone else. So if I own a song - I may do anything with it, I may sell it, copy it, play it on the radio - and noone has any moral right to forbid it - because I OWN it. Basically, a physical media and the logical one (information) are inseparable hier - the owner of the physical media is the owner of the logical one. Apparrently, this is not what CD sellers want, and this is understandable.

    Thus we come to another possibility - bying a license. This means, that a purchaser of a song has rights to hear this son gfor his private pursoses. Here, physical and logical media are separate - access to locigal media is limited by a license. Still, there are absolutely no reasons to forbid a user making a private copy, if he isn't giving it to a third person or otherwise violates the license.

    So first of all, the RIAA has to decide what it sells, then there should be a public discussion. You have to admitt, the law regulations of information property are very primitive. What we need, is a basic model that would provide some meaningfull regulations. I mean, how can one be convicted because of a IP log and Kazaaa schreenshots?? It is like convicting someone because of an anonymous letter! The only hard evidence would be seizing the hard drive and locating the programs/files there.


    P.S. There are similar problems with computer games... If my game CD is broken, is the publisher obligated to send me another one free of charge (or for a minimal production fee). I would say yes, because I bought rights to play the game, and not a game disc only. Or what if I buy a gema, install it, read the license conditions and don't agree? Will teh store take teh game back? I would love to try it :)
     
  17. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    I plead guilty to more millions of fines than I'll ever be able to make in my whole life, simply by using a P2P client to download stuff.

    Never mind I don't even look/watch/play or whatever the majority of it, and I buy it fair and square when I do and like it, if it's still available anywhere (most things are, if you search long enough).

    Consider me (and about a billion of other people) bankrupted whenever the RIAA locks down on my IP address.


    And I'm pretty sure most everyone else reading this tread has the same problem as well.


    When the vast majority does it and a tiny minority with huge amounts of money disagrees, what is the most likely outcome?
     
    #57 Frank, Oct 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2007
  18. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,895
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    PA USA
    I haven't done it for years and years. I only ever did it for one band that said to do it and I was feeling surly since they invited people to do it as a publicity stunt when privately they probably hoped no one would, but did not want to take an unpopular stand.
     
  19. borowki

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    2
    What's so unreasonable about that? Individuals should be accountable only for their own actions. It would be unjust if culpability is determined by the actions of others--in this case whether other users on the P2P network download the shared file or not.
     
  20. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Looking at all the people you know, would you consider yourself a small minority in that?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...