RIAA loses suit to make mother pay for 13 year old's file sharing..

[SirFozzie]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26460

THE RECORDING Industry Association of America (RIAA) has lost a key case where it attempted to sue a mother over her 13-year old child's file sharing abilities.

According to CD Freaks, the case was overturned in a federal court in Michigan with prejudice. That means the RIAA case is lost.

The RIAA was forced to withdraw its case because it held the mother couldn't be held to be liable for letting her daughter share music online.

The case was brought by Priority Records on behalf of Elektra Motowwn Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, UMG Recordings and Arista.

The funny thing is that RIAA came in, assuming that the woman would settle like all the other folks so far, she told em no.. they tried to pressure her at the opening hearing, telling her that it would be much cheaper just to work with the "Settlement Center" (ie, extortion house)..

The Judge was not amused by their actions and told the lawyer (who figured just to extend it till the mother agreed to pay due to legal bills).. she now goes through YOU, nobody else. No Settlement Center.

And now this.

[DaddyTorgo]

yessss!!! VICTORY OVER THE HEATHENS AT LONG LAST!!! I SHALL HAVE MY VENGENCE!!

[SirFozzie]

Judge smacking around the RIAA in initial court appearance (http://info.riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt)

[SirFozzie]

Love this part (Sorry about the line #'s, got this from the .txt file above)

20 THE COURT: I'm in no hurry to see this case resolved.
21 So far, Mrs. Santangelo has raised enough issues, including the
22 use of a screen name or an account name -- not hers, but some
23 other person's -- that suggests that she might have some really
24 interesting defenses to this. And there are defenses that
25 maybe even ought to be litigated. The whole concept of a young
1 person using the parent's computer access is bad enough, but if
2 this name is not hers, she doesn't pay for this account.
3 MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action,
4 your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
5 THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see.
6 And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy
7 with her.
8 So let's set another conference date for July 8th at,
9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then.
10 And if you get an attorney, you need to put the attorney in
11 touch with Mr. Maschio, and maybe you will get this thing
12 resolved.
13 MS. SANTANGELO: Mr. Maschio's --
14 THE COURT: He will give you his business card.
15 MS. SANTANGELO: There is more than one group here.
16 MR. MASCHIO: I'll give her my card, but our
17 instructions are for these people to deal with the conference
18 settlement center. They had discussions.
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the
20 Judge --
21 MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
22 THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer,
23 her lawyer will deal with you.
24 MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you
1 file it in front of an arbitrator.
2 MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is
3 that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more
4 direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate
5 things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
6 THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my
7 court.
8 MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
9 THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your
10 conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with
11 anything.
12 MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
13 THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an
14 officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering
15 up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court.
16 Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be
17 representing your client, not some conference center. And if
18 your people want things to be done through the conference
19 center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just another example of why I have a decreasing amount of faith in the court system & why I'm becoming more & more certain that it needs a serious overhaul.

[SirFozzie]

Just another example of why I have a decreasing amount of faith in the court system & why I'm becoming more & more certain that it needs a serious overhaul.

Yup, because some folks want to use it as an extortion tool, right Jon? (Sarcasm I know)

(yeah, I know, we're back to that divide on this issue, but HA! it's good to see a judge deliver a legal smackdown like this. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of assholes)

[JonInMiddleGA]

(yeah, I know, we're back to that divide on this issue, but HA! it's good to see a judge deliver a legal smackdown like this. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of assholes)

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

[Greyroofoo]

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

word!

[SirFozzie]

And there we go, after about a year of pretty much agreeing on most issues, we're back to this, Just like the old days Jon.

This is a huge kick in the jimmies for the RIAA. Their big plan was to sue all the parents into trying to hover over the kids 24/7, just in case they downloaded a song. Thy threaten 150K a song (as if..), and extort as much as they can out of the family, and then move on to the next one.

But even though they still can sue the kid (and if they should or not, hey, that's their decision), don't know if they will.

A) They'd look even further like the mafia-like thugs they are with 2,000 lawsuits against minors

B) Guess what.. kids ain't got no money. Oh well, can't extort it from the big pocketbooks of the folks no more.

The judge had it right. Don't use our already overburdened court system as an extortion system. If you're going to sue.. deal with lawyers. Don't say. "Our lawyers will crush you.. but you can pay us now" and refer them to the "Settlement" Center instead of dealing with lawyers.

[SirFozzie]

word!

If by "word" means completely overreacting, and making an ass out of yourself, then word indeed.

[BrianD]

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

A judge who refused to let his court be used for extortion and insists it only be used for legal purposes. Yes, that is pretty terrible.

[sovereignstar]

If by "word" means completely overreacting, and making an ass out of yourself, then word indeed.

Or perhaps "word" means Jon needs to be gang-raped by the Tech football team until he dies of internal bleeding.

[Tekneek]

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

When the judicial system doesn't agree with you, just wish them all dead.

[SirFozzie]

Or perhaps "word" means Jon needs to be gang-raped by the Tech football team until he dies of internal bleeding.

Dude, NOT cool. Mock the views if you want. Don't go to that level.

Really not cool.

[DaddyTorgo]

aaaah, i sense a SD-boxination coming for Sov.

[BrianD]

When you see someone wish death on three people, it is hard to not have a strong reaction.

[DaddyTorgo]

When you see someone wish death on three people, it is hard to not have a strong reaction.
ah true true. i had overlooked that a bit. in that sense, sov's comments weren't so bad. Can I get a dual-boxination?

[BrianD]

ah true true. i had overlooked that a bit. in that sense, sov's comments weren't so bad. Can I get a dual-boxination?

Well, I'm not saying Sov's comment was right....but I understand it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If by "word" means completely overreacting, and making an ass out of yourself, then word indeed.

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.

[Raiders Army]

When you see someone wish death on three people, it is hard to not have a strong reaction.
Technically he didn't wish death upon them. He just said the world would be a better place without them around.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call.

[DaddyTorgo]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.
the issue i have with the RIAA in these cases is that the punishment FAR outweighs the crime, even financially. the 150k/song figure is RIDICULOUS. there is no logical way they could come up with that figure. so in that sense i would rather see zero penalty then one that is that ridiculous

[BrianD]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.

The RIAA has a legal recourse, but they are afraid to use it in case a bad precedent is set. They much prefer to use their current crop of highly motivated "persuaders" to try to bully folks.

[Flasch186]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.

Im sure you'll agree though that the RIAA doesn't behave appropriately on theyre way to court. If I called you up tomorrow and said, "Jon, I saw on the message board you wished death on XYZ, and in my opinion it is you threatening them. BUT if you simply want to send me a check for 50k I'll forget about it." You'd agree the behaviour is reprehensible. Sure theft is bad but extortion is too. Right?

[MacroGuru]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.
Real quick question for you....back when casette tapes were the rage....did you perhaps, record something from the radio, even for yourself.....what about copy said song for your friends? Make that slow mix from the radio you liked for your dates?

How about ever sneak a taste of candy from the bulk bins?

Just curious here....

[DaddyTorgo]

Real quick question for you....back when casette tapes were the rage....did you perhaps, record something from the radio, even for yourself.....what about copy said song for your friends? Make that slow mix from the radio you liked for your dates?

How about ever sneak a taste of candy from the bulk bins?

Just curious here....
i'm sure the answer you'll get is "nope. never." because JiMG is rightous, and perfect and has never done a single thing wrong in his life. Never even does a rolling-stop at a stop-sign on a deserted road.

*sarcasm off*

not that i'm biblical at all, but...LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

[sabotai]

What'd I give to have a private detective follow Jon around and see what lawlessness he's up to without even thinking about it. Speeding? Littering (with all the smoking you do, some of them must find their way to the sidewalk/street :) )?. I mean, you're the one who says the world is black and white. Lawlessness is lawlessness, right? ;)

[sterlingice]

B) Guess what.. kids ain't got no money. Oh well, can't extort it from the big pocketbooks of the folks no more.
"Poor people have no money. Might as well let them steal stuff".

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Real quick question for you....back when casette tapes were the rage....did you perhaps, record something from the radio, even for yourself.....what about copy said song for your friends? Make that slow mix from the radio you liked for your dates?

How about ever sneak a taste of candy from the bulk bins?

Just curious here....
...or record a show on VHS? Or channel surf while your favorite show was on commercial?

Someone once said that an alcoholic is defined by most people as "anyone that drinks more than me". It appears that JIMG's definition of a criminal that should be executed is "anyone that steals more than me".

But the real issue is that intellectual property is much different from real property. Someone takes a song off the internets, that doesn't preclude someone else from owning it or listening to it. In fact, there is a greater benefit to society the more people that are able to listen to it, which just isn't the case with real property.

[SirFozzie]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.


Bwahahahahahahahahahaa! How you can mouth that stuff with a straight face, Jon, is beyond me.

That's what we need, sure it is alright. Maximum Security lockups for teenagers. Alcatraz for Adolescents! Sing Sing for Secondary Schoolers! Alles in ordnung!

Ladies and gentlemen, for Jon's next gig, he's going to advocate that we burn all libraries to the ground! After all, they loan out books again and again, without paying the author full price for the book each time they loan it to someone new..., or even asking permission of the most holy copyright owners. How completely horrid!

And while we're at it, ban the VCR, and the Tivo! You'll watch our shows when WE want you to, and no time else! If we let Joe Average use a VCR, he'll just tape television shows and *gasp* share it with his friends! They might even.. The HORROR.. FAST FORWARD THROUGH THE COMMERCIALS..

We must protect the god-given holy Copyright and Intellectual Property! God Save our Great Nation. And remember..

http://jamesandannie.cyberflunk.com/images/MP3_downloading_communism.jpg

[Crapshoot]

Actually Fozzie, I'm completely serious.

I'm sick beyond words of watching thieves get away with it, and I harbor them nothing but ill will at this point. $150k isn't enough IMO, these acts of theft should come with jail time, including 3 strikes provisions that puts removes these theiving little pieces of vermin out of circulation permanently if neccessary. And if parents aren't willing to control their children's criminal behavior, then they don't belong on the streets either.

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe lawlessness IS the way to go. Maybe the RIAA finds some very talented & highly motivated "persuaders" to "encourage" people to quit stealing from them.

This is repulsive Jon, even by your standards. A punishment should fit the crime. Respect for property rights is one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society, but you've shown enough selective disregard for the means and acquisition of property (see the Lucent thread) that its more than a little hypocritical.

[Anthony]

aaaah, i sense a SD-boxination coming for Sov.

this is what you get when sov tries to take a page out of my book. :rolleyes:

[illinifan999]

Life in prison for downloading songs, man where do people come up with this stuff?

So I'm guessing you have no problem with someone spending their life in prison for going 4 miles over the speed limit right? It may be a petty crime, but fuck once we put those punks in jail I'll bet the streets are much more safe!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Real quick question for you....back when casette tapes were the rage....did you perhaps, record something from the radio, even for yourself.....what about copy said song for your friends? Make that slow mix from the radio you liked for your dates?

How about ever sneak a taste of candy from the bulk bins?

Just curious here....

Nope, although the radio thing is sort of an unfair question -- I knew from an early age that it was illegal to make those tapes because I had an interest in the radio business at a pretty young age (had a on-air guy explain why they weren't supposed to do the whole "will you announce this before you play it so I can tape it" when I was probably 8 or 9 years old.

And no, I never stole candy from the store (again, not quite fair though since I honestly don't recall ever seeing bulk bins until I was an adult or at least late teens.).

[Anthony]

i'll give Jon this:

he's very consistent. i hate his views, but i admire his willingness to share his unpopular (and all totally wrong) opinions with the public.

the "let the punishment fit the crime" statement is appropriate in this case - $150K for downloading a song is grossly insane. you don't even get punished that much for stealing an actual cd. a slap on the wrist and community service is more like it.

[illinifan999]

Nope, although the radio thing is sort of an unfair question -- I knew from an early age that it was illegal to make those tapes because I had an interest in the radio business at a pretty young age (had a on-air guy explain why they weren't supposed to do the whole "will you announce this before you play it so I can tape it" when I was probably 8 or 9 years old.

And no, I never stole candy from the store (again, not quite fair though since I honestly don't recall ever seeing bulk bins until I was an adult or at least late teens.). ever speed, maybe even just 1 mile over the speed limit?

[panerd]

I have always wondered why a pedophile has never attempted a similar defense? (Bear with me here, more of a curiosity thing than an evil plan)

"What do you mean you found naked images of 13 year old girls on my computer? They belong to my 11-year old son! He can't look at naked girls that are older than him?"

[Anthony]

ever speed, maybe even just 1 mile over the speed limit?

do you really expect an honest answer? jon knows as much as anone else that as soon as he admits to [insert petty, minor infraction here] everyone will jump down his throat with "a HA!!! so you *are* in fact a criminal too!".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaa! How you can mouth that stuff with a straight face, Jon, is beyond me.

How you can support thieves with a straight face escapes me too, so I guess we're even. And how you can do it & still look at yourself in a mirror really astonishes me.

I don't separate intellectual property particularly from physical property, as they are both derived from efforts & have rightful owners. And those are indeed things I hold in extremely high regard, I don't intend to apologize for that.

I don't shed a tear when a shopkeeper guns down some thieving p.o.s., if I get a convienient chance I'll even offer to buy him/her a box of ammo to reload with for next time. I really don't see any difference with the sort of thieves mentioned in this article & meant exactly what I said earlier, the world would be better off without them.

If that bothers you (or anybody else), I don't know what to tell you, that's just how it is. I won't lie to make you feel better nor will I sit back & let you post something celebrating these theiving pieces of garbage without making it clear that your attitude is at best offensive & at worst downright nauseating. Nobody around here seems to have a problem calling me out when they disagree with something I say, so I really don't feel much need to sit back & let something that disgusts me so thoroughly go without a reply either.

[ISiddiqui]

I thought Jon believed in personal responsibility... why charge the parent for something the kid did? RIAA is only doing it because it fears the PR backlash if it goes against kids directly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

you don't even get punished that much for stealing an actual cd. a slap on the wrist and community service is more like it.

To coin a phrase, two wrongs don't make a right. Inadequate punishment for one doesn't negate the need for at least somewhat adequate punishement for the other.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought Jon believed in personal responsibility... why charge the parent for something the kid did? RIAA is only doing it because it fears the PR backlash if it goes against kids directly.

Actually, I believe there's a pretty good history of parents being responsible for the conduct of their children in a legal sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, I believe there's a pretty good history of parents being responsible for the conduct of their children in a legal sense.
And what does that have to do with the concept of "PERSONAL responsibility". Since you show such disdain for the law, refering back to it doesn't qualify as an adequate response.

[RendeR]

Why do you people continue to attempt to make a real discussion with JiMG? He has proven time and time again that he will not waiver from his pathtically self rightious views on how EVERYONE should live their lives.

Lucky for us we live in America and not say...stalinist russia or some other big-brother society. Yes, we're going that way with this pathetic administration, but we're not dead yet.

Trying to have a logical sane, common SENSE discussion with JiMG is like trying to count the chinese all in a row, by the time you've finished, he's got an entirely new fucked up train of thought going. Its a waste of time.

[Danny]

This one time when I was a baby I accidently stole a candy necklace from a grocery store. My mom was grabbing something from a shelf and I must have picked it up and put it around my neck. I then fell asleep in the stroller and we left with the necklace. I cant believe my mom didn't get thrown into prison for 20 years, what is this world coming to!

[illinifan999]

ever speed, maybe even just 1 mile over the speed limit?
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif

[DaddyTorgo]

Why do you people continue to attempt to make a real discussion with JiMG? He has proven time and time again that he will not waiver from his pathtically self rightious views on how EVERYONE should live their lives.

Lucky for us we live in America and not say...stalinist russia or some other big-brother society. Yes, we're going that way with this pathetic administration, but we're not dead yet.

Trying to have a logical sane, common SENSE discussion with JiMG is like trying to count the chinese all in a row, by the time you've finished, he's got an entirely new fucked up train of thought going. Its a waste of time.
because it's amusing maybe? It's like waving meat in front of a hungry bear.

[DaddyTorgo]

This one time when I was a baby I accidently stole a candy necklace from a grocery store. My mom was grabbing something from a shelf and I must have picked it up and put it around my neck. I then fell asleep in the stroller and we left with the necklace. I cant believe my mom didn't get thrown into prison for 20 years, what is this world coming to!
well you're just going to HELL!! SINNER!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Its a waste of time.

Kinda like expecting anything of any value to ever come from your keyboard?

Surely as the sun rises & sets, Render will waste bandwidth & contribute nothing to any conversation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And what does that have to do with the concept of "PERSONAL responsibility". Since you show such disdain for the law, refering back to it doesn't qualify as an adequate response.

Well, if you want to know the truth, I figure outright advocation of executing them for their abject failure to teach anything resembling an adequate set of ethics or morality to their children would probably be more than some of the bedwetters here could take, I figured I'd go with the lesser (albeit increasingly ineffective) route here just to be kind.

[illinifan999]

ever speed, maybe even just 1 mile over the speed limit?
ba dump cha

[ISiddiqui]

Well, if you want to know the truth, I figure outright advocation of executing them for their abject failure to teach anything resembling an adequate set of ethics or morality to their children would probably be more than some of the bedwetters here could take, I figured I'd go with the lesser (albeit increasingly ineffective) route here just to be kind.
George Herbert Walker Bush's son was a crackhead and alcohol abuser. Guess he should have been offed sometime during the 70s, eh?

[RendeR]

Kinda like expecting anything of any value to ever come from your keyboard?

Surely as the sun rises & sets, Render will waste bandwidth & contribute nothing to any conversation.


So glad I can dissapoint you Jon, it brightens my days and brings orgasms to my bored little mind at night to think that I've elicited a response from one so totally above all the rest of us poor unethical backwards people as yourself.

[Crapshoot]

I'm still curious why you're so easily willing to dismiss property rights in the Lucent case.

[RendeR]

I'm still curious why you're so easily willing to dismiss property rights in the Lucent case.


Its called hypocracy, I think there is a picture of JiMG next to the entry in a dictionary I read somewhere.

[DaddyTorgo]

Its called hypocracy, I think there is a picture of JiMG next to the entry in a dictionary I read somewhere.
".

[Crapshoot]

I dont think we'll find "hypocracy" in the dictionary- hypocrisy, perhaps. :D

That being said, I think Jon is a facist, but a consistent one for the most part, which is why this is surprising.

[sterlingice]

I'm with JiMGA here, tho not as far as the $150K fine and shooting. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be sent to jail or fined a more reasonable amount, similar to if you steal something like a CD. That said, I've found that the thieves on this board have far more energy than the people opposed to it and I don't feel like cutting and pasting the same tired story each time this comes along so have fun.

SI

[illinifan999]

I agree people who speed should be sent to jail.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm still curious why you're so easily willing to dismiss property rights in the Lucent case.

Simple enough to answer: "greater good" pretty much covers it well enough for here I think.

Hmm ... that's probably oversimplified even for my taste right now.
Lemme see if I can do this in a straight run, 'cause there's (IMO) a kind of glaring contradiction between the "greater good" justification & my unabashed distaste for a lot of things about the state benefitting from that "greater good".

US = pretty fucked up in a number of ways ... but it still closer to the ideal than most any other existing framework (there are others with arguably better framework for the ideals but that would require even more manipulation to reach said ideals ... SO, it's in the best interest to maintain the security of the US in the long term, as it appears to be the most "tweakable" to desired form.

Did that read through well enough to get across what I'm thinking here? Phrased a little different, it's far from perfect but it still has (I hope) enough potential for me to place high value on safeguarding its status ... which is how national security in the Lucent case discussed the other day trumps the property rights (one of the few trump cards I can think of for those off-hand).

[cody8200]

Jonny boy...you are full of shit. I just thought someone should say it. Everyone else was beating around the bush.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm with JiMGA here, tho not as far as the $150K fine and shooting. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be sent to jail or fined a more reasonable amount, similar to if you steal something like a CD. That said, I've found that the thieves on this board have far more energy than the people opposed to it and I don't feel like cutting and pasting the same tired story each time this comes along so have fun.

SI
But the woman charged wasn't the thief. Unless we are charging parents for EVERYTHING their kids do wrong.

[Crapshoot]

I'm with JiMGA here, tho not as far as the $150K fine and shooting. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be sent to jail or fined a more reasonable amount, similar to if you steal something like a CD. That said, I've found that the thieves on this board have far more energy than the people opposed to it and I don't feel like cutting and pasting the same tired story each time this comes along so have fun.

SI

A cop-out- I've rebucked people for this before, but suggesting that people deserve to be shot for it is more than ridiculous - especially when applied to 13 year olds. Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.

[illinifan999]

I get the feeling Jon isn't going to answer if he has sped or not.

[cody8200]

BTW, I'm very happy to see the RIAA got what it deserved and was put into its place. I'm tired of huge corporations using strong arm tactics to get their way. If they dont file a class action suit against the 150 million americans who download music then they shouldnt file any at all.

[Chubby]

A cop-out- I've rebucked people for this before, but suggesting that people deserve to be shot for it is more than ridiculous - especially when applied to 13 year olds. Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.
or as long as it's the RIAA. Somehow "two wrongs don't make a right" yet he feels people should be killed and fined $150k+ for downloading a song they may or may not have on a purchased cd

[sterlingice]

But the woman charged wasn't the thief. Unless we are charging parents for EVERYTHING their kids do wrong.
I don't know the case intimately so I'm just basing this on the assumption that this was one of those states where parents can be held responsible for kid's actions. There are quite a few laws like this- this may not be one of them. I also agree that using the courts to extort people is wrong. However, I think some people haven't drawn the line between extortion and paying for your crime. You can't tell me there aren't quite a few people in this thread advocating that it's ok to not even prosecute these people and those are more who those comments are directed towards.

SI

[sterlingice]

A cop-out- I've rebucked people for this before, but suggesting that people deserve to be shot for it is more than ridiculous - especially when applied to 13 year olds. Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.
I think you guys going after Jon are the ones using the copout. Yeah, Jon's opinions aren't even shared by 99.99% of the people out there and you're using him as the strawman in this argument.

SI

[Chubby]

I don't know the case intimately so I'm just basing this on the assumption that this was one of those states where parents can be held responsible for kid's actions. There are quite a few laws like this- this may not be one of them. I also agree that using the courts to extort people is wrong. However, I think some people haven't drawn the line between extortion and paying for your crime. You can't tell me there aren't quite a few people in this thread advocating that it's ok to not even prosecute these people and those are more who those comments are directed towards.

SI
the problem is the RIAA doesn't want a conviction they want a payoff

[cody8200]

Should the RIAA prosecute a 13 year old for doing what 150 million other americans are doing? I just can't say yes with a straight face. Surely there are better cases to prosecute. I KNOW their are wealthier citizens.

[vex]

hey illinifan999, has Jon ever sped? You should ask him ;)

[BrianD]

Should the RIAA prosecute a 13 year old for doing what 150 million other americans are doing? I just can't say yes with a serious face. Surely there are better cases to prosecute. I KNOW their are wealtheir citizens.

This is a bad argument. The whole point of a deterrent is to go prosecute those you can to scare away others.

[illinifan999]

hey illinifan999, has Jon ever sped? You should ask him ;)
excellent idea,

Jon you ever sped before?

[cody8200]

This is a bad argument. The whole point of a deterrent is to go prosecute those you can to scare away others.

So you pick a 13 year old? I thought the whole point of prosecution was to rehabilitate the evil-doers? :)

[BrianD]

I think you guys going after Jon are the ones using the copout. Yeah, Jon's opinions aren't even shared by 99.99% of the people out there and you're using him as the strawman in this argument.

SI

Arguments are made on both sides of the downloading issue. It is a tough argument mostly knowing just how far to take things. Jon's points are much easier to argue since they are so totally over the line. He makes himself an easy target and distracts people from the real issues.

[clintl]

1. The $150K is not a fine, it represents compensatory damages. The RIAA can only file a civil case. It is a private organization, and unless a prosecutor takes up the case on a criminal charge, jail time is not in the picture.

2. $150K comes from the maximum civil award per occurrence for copyright infringement. Downloading a song, the RIAA is contending, is one occurrence, so they are basically suing for the maximum amount the law allows. Now, if one of these things went to trial, a jury would decide the actual damages, and it would certainly be amusing if a jury decided the damages were equal to the retail price of a song, which is $1. And a jury might well do that. I'm guessing that the last thing the RIAA wants is a trial, which is why their attorney kept bringing up the Settlement Center.

[BrianD]

So you pick a 13 year old? I thought the whole point of prosecution was to rehabilitate the evil-doers? :)

As an asside, I wonder if this person will be scared straight after the whole fiasco.

Back on point, I'm guessing that the RIAA didn't know the anonymous username they were going after was 13 years old. Once they figured it out, I'm guessing they went after the parents since they actually had pockets.

[Crapshoot]

Simple enough to answer: "greater good" pretty much covers it well enough for here I think.

Hmm ... that's probably oversimplified even for my taste right now.
Lemme see if I can do this in a straight run, 'cause there's (IMO) a kind of glaring contradiction between the "greater good" justification & my unabashed distaste for a lot of things about the state benefitting from that "greater good".

US = pretty fucked up in a number of ways ... but it still closer to the ideal than most any other existing framework (there are others with arguably better framework for the ideals but that would require even more manipulation to reach said ideals ... SO, it's in the best interest to maintain the security of the US in the long term, as it appears to be the most "tweakable" to desired form.

Did that read through well enough to get across what I'm thinking here? Phrased a little different, it's far from perfect but it still has (I hope) enough potential for me to place high value on safeguarding its status ... which is how national security in the Lucent case discussed the other day trumps the property rights (one of the few trump cards I can think of for those off-hand).


Hmm. I get the point, but it seems to me that arbitrary faith in elected politicians means far less than faith in a judiciary set up to check them. I think national security, especially after 9-11, has become an excuse for unchecked abuse of powers, and the fact that property rights, one of the tenents of the system, also fall to the wayside- that's more than depressing. Also, the "greater good" logic (which is where you end up at, after the extended arguement) is far more prone to abuse - you've set up a standard. As I recall, you weren't completely opposed to Kelo vs London either, which leads me to believe that your faith in government is unusually strong (or relatively better, probably more accurate) for someone so far to the right.

[cody8200]

As an asside, I wonder if this person will be scared straight after the whole fiasco.

Back on point, I'm guessing that the RIAA didn't know the anonymous username they were going after was 13 years old. Once they figured it out, I'm guessing they went after the parents since they actually had pockets.

I agree but I think going after the parents of a minor is a mistake. Can parents be held liable for their children doing things on the computer? If a minor committed credit card fraud from the computer the parent wouldnt be liable would he?

[BrianD]

1. The $150K is not a fine, it represents compensatory damages. The RIAA can only file a civil case. It is a private organization, and unless a prosecutor takes up the case on a criminal charge, jail time is not in the picture.

2. $150K comes from the maximum civil award per occurrence for copyright infringement. Downloading a song, the RIAA is contending, is one occurrence, so they are basically suing for the maximum amount the law allows. Now, if one of these things went to trial, a jury would decide the actual damages, and it would certainly be amusing if a jury decided the damages were equal to the retail price of a song, which is $1. And a jury might well do that. I'm guessing that the last thing the RIAA wants is a trial, which is why their attorney kept bringing up the Settlement Center.

There is no way the RIAA wants a trial, and that is exactly why they lead off with the maximum penalty. Start with a scary number, and settle for something they think is fair. If things ever go to trial, they run the risk of getting a very liberal jury who awards almost no damages and they no longer have the ability to scare people. Plus the costs of the trial will quickly eat up any awards they might get.

[MrBigglesworth]

Simple enough to answer: "greater good" pretty much covers it well enough for here I think.
Jon, the greater good in the file sharing case is to allow the free exchanage of music! By your own logic you should be in favor of file sharing. File sharing allows more people to listen to more music, and there has been no evidence that it ultimately cuts into the profits of musicians. Musicians benefit from file sharing through increased exposure, consumers get more music, and the greater good is served.

[BrianD]

I agree but I think going after the parents of a minor is a mistake. Can parents be held liable for doing things on the computer? If a minor committed credit card fraud from the computer the parent wouldnt be liable would he?

I'm not arguing that going after a minor is a bad decision. They probably have much better tragets to go after. I'm guessing that after all the work they went through to track down the minor, the RIAA figured going after the parent was better than nothing. Most everybody had gotten scared and paid the settlement, so it seemed like a fair plan.

My major point of contention was the argument that we shouldn't go after the girl because 150 million other Americans were doing the same thing. If an action is wrong, you have to address the action one person at a time.

[SirFozzie]

yeah, I would love it if the RIAA got a USFL award (a "Yes, you're right, but so what, $1 is all you get")... type deal.

The reason why the Labels fought Itunes for so long is because it sets a baseline for them. The jury can just say.. "Well, 99 cents a song is all they can reasonably charge, maybe doubled or tripled because of the nature of the case". No more wink wink nod nod "Sir, the defendant downloaded a song for his own personal use, and then changed his mind and sent it to 15 friends. We want 15x150K or 2.25 Million Dollars"

Look up Schadenfrude sometime. Ah never mind, let me commit some Copyright Infringement from Dictionary.com ;)

schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun:
A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.

I've never said that downloading songs is morally right and fluffy bunnies and rainbows happen when you do it. Never. I've always said it's wrong. It's copyright infringement. It's NOT theft. As much as you, the RIAA, and various other folks want to point the finger and scream "THIEF! THIEF THIEF!" it's just not true. The Supreme Court has specifically said when RIAA tried to drag up the "Thief" strawman that downloading Copyrighted materials is NOT theft. It's copyright infringement.

Isn't it amazing the tighter they grip this thing, the more it slips through their hands?

[sterlingice]

I'm not saying we haven't had this argument before, but...

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=8548
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=29329
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=20179
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=13715
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=36719
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=39584

SI

[cody8200]

I'm not arguing that going after a minor is a bad decision. They probably have much better tragets to go after. I'm guessing that after all the work they went through to track down the minor, the RIAA figured going after the parent was better than nothing. Most everybody had gotten scared and paid the settlement, so it seemed like a fair plan.

My major point of contention was the argument that we shouldn't go after the girl because 150 million other Americans were doing the same thing. If an action is wrong, you have to address the action one person at a time.

That's true...but obviously there will be trials if they start taking a bunch of people to court and at that point it seems like the RIAA may start losing their battle.

[BrianD]

That's true...but obviously there will be trials if they start taking a bunch of people to court and at that point it seems like the RIAA may start losing their battle.

I'm really surprised no lawyers have decided to take one of these cases pro bono just to take on the RIAA and make a name for themselves. I'm sure the process would be expensive, but that lawyer would become a household name. Eventually it is going to happen and I'll be curious to see what the landscape looks like afterward.

[SirFozzie]

That's true...but obviously there will be trials if they start taking a bunch of people to court and at that point it seems like the RIAA may start losing their battle.

They've already lost (or more accurately) on their way to losing the battle. The popularity of LEGAL services like the upcoming Mashboxx, ITunes, etcetera shows that they can/will be dragged into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if need be.

They've lost the heart and minds battle among Joe and Jane Average a long time ago. They still have Congress.. but how long will it be before the sons of Joe/Jane average become Congressmen?

[miked]

I rebroadcasted an account of a baseball game once without the express written consent of Major League Baseball. They've tried to take my dog to court for 13 million dollars since technically he was the one that told me to do it. I don't answer my door for fear of summary judgement by a guy with a gun.

[Huckleberry]

JIMG started this thread with an amazing lack of reading comprehension and went from there.

The mother's position is that another child (not her own) used the computer to download the songs. In court and to the judge's face she contended that her issue was not with the RIAA but was with the makers of Kazaa for allowing people to download music illegally. She described making such a thing simple to do as "mind-boggling" to her. So, in effect, she agreed that downloading the songs was wrong and it may indeed have not even been her child that did it.

And for this, JIMG thinks she should be executed.

Which is why the only logical punishment for JIMG's abject stupidity is his own execution.

[JeffNights]

JIMG started this thread with an amazing lack of reading comprehension and went from there.



And for this, JIMG thinks she should be executed.

Which is why the only logical punishment for JIMG's abject stupidity is his own execution.


I support your motion sir!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jonny boy...you are full of shit. I just thought someone should say it. Everyone else was beating around the bush.

And you are ... who exactly? Mr 400 posts in 5 years & oh so knowledgable at, what is it, 23 years old?

Tell ya what, when I need an opinion from you, I'll give it to you. Until then, how about going & doing your homework or something, as long as you STFU it really doesn't matter much to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

JIMG started this thread with an amazing lack of reading comprehension and went from there.

I worked straight from the quoted portion, specifically
... it held the mother couldn't be held to be liable for letting her daughter share music online.

That's the basis for my "comprehension" of the information, I used what was stated in plain black letters. The ruling, as described there, does not indicate anything about a claim of another user being involved was a part of the decision.

Frankly, if she's done this piss-poor a job of parenting, I'm not exactly inclined toward believing her claims of shocked innocence in the first place.

[MacroGuru]

And you are ... who exactly? Mr 400 posts in 5 years & oh so knowledgable at, what is it, 23 years old?

Tell ya what, when I need an opinion from you, I'll give it to you. Until then, how about going & doing your homework or something, as long as you STFU it really doesn't matter much to me.
Hell Yeah!

Now here is where you remind me of my PWT 52 year old step father. He is older so he knows more and is better than me.

Well, honestly, here is where I say fuck you, and fuck the mentality you possess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I get the feeling Jon isn't going to answer if he has sped or not.

Give a guy a little time here, it's tough to catch every single post + watch the rally in Baton Rouge + have to sort through so much crap from so many posters already on ignore just to catch even a portion of the steaming bullshit shoveled in my direction. I answered your first one, I didn't notice the speeding thing until later. Feel free to file suit if you desire.

Yep, I've got a whopping one whole speeding ticket in 38 years.
Wasn't in a stolen car though.

From your question, I'm guessing you're trying to apply some sort of "any crime" generality standard & if that's your belief, by all means go for it. But that's not what I've said here, I believe I've been pretty specific about the theft aspect being the part I'm talking about in this thread. It's certainly not the only crime I lean toward harsh, or even capital, punishment for ... but that's also not the same as me advocating extreme prejudice as punishment for all crimes either (which, just guessing here, is where you were trying to go with this).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hell Yeah!

Now here is where you remind me of my PWT 52 year old step father. He is older so he knows more and is better than me.

Well, honestly, here is where I say fuck you, and fuck the mentality you possess.

ISS, the relevant question isn't whether he's older than you ... it's whether he does know more and/or is better than you.

In the words of Richard Pryor "You learn something when you listen to old people. They ain't fools, see. You don't get to be old by being no fool, see.
A lot of young wise men are deader than a motherfucker ain't they?

So, honestly, here is where I say fuck you too & fuck the lack of useful contribution you appear able to make to this oh-so-thrilling conversation.

[JeffNights]

Jon is a fucking Dweeb. He spews his bullshit to simply get attention. Let him have his "internet messageboard" higher ground crap if he wants.

Jon can write all the crap he wants, he is to me as he was before...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Moreover, JIMGA has no problem with theft, as long as the entity is the government.

Tsk tsk, crapper, here I was giving you credit for being at least a little smarter than this.

At no point that I recall have you seen me put right of property above all other concerns. Damn, I even took the time to try to give you an honest explanation of how I reconcile the two situations.

Ah well, my own fault, I shoulda known better than to even bother with you I guess. My bad, I'll try to do better in the future.

[MacroGuru]

ISS, the relevant question isn't whether he's older than you ... it's whether he does know more and/or is better than you.

In the words of Richard Pryor "You learn something when you listen to old people. They ain't fools, see. You don't get to be old by being no fool, see.
A lot of young wise men are deader than a motherfucker ain't they?

So, honestly, here is where I say fuck you too & fuck the lack of useful contribution you appear able to make to this oh-so-thrilling conversation.
And you have contributed how? By enflaming everyone and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are full of shit.

Honestly, when someone older than me speaks, I tend to listen, unless that someone is full of it, then I will call them on it, as I am doing here.

You are so far out there, I do not think you even have a normal chance of coming home from it. If you honestly believe your dribble about 3 strikes, for people who download a freaking file, then you are wacked out....

Life? How do you propose paying for it? You know how many people would be locked up for that a lone, because honestly, it wouldn't deter anyone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon is a fucking Dweeb. He spews his bullshit to simply get attention. Let him have his "internet messageboard" higher ground crap if he wants.

Actually Jeffie, tonight it's because I was a)relatively bored & moreso
b)ticked off by the celebratory nature of such a disgusting ruling by the court.

As for the "higher ground", eh, I just sort of let that sort of stuff fall wherever it falls. If somebody is a fucking thief, I don't feel right about letting that go unchallenged. If that's a grab for "high ground" so be it, it's just the truth.

If it bothers you, well damn what can I say? Tough shit boy-o, deal with it in whatever way works for you. I suggest "ignore" as a fairly easy to understand option, it isn't foolproof unfortunately, as there's no shortage of things that you'll try to miss but somebody will put in quotes, but it at least cuts down the signal-to-noise ratio a little bit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

By enflaming everyone

So it's somehow my fault that there's a lot of people here who think it's a-ok
to take things without paying for them, regardless of whether you have any right to them?

Well damn, if you're at that point, where me being critical of indefensible behavior is what's wrong in this thread ... just damn, I'm sorry to say that I don't really see much hope for you either.

re: the 3 strikes bit -- As I alluded to earlier, I was really soft-selling my position a little bit. I'd really honestly prefer they just be shot twice in the back of the head as a deterrent for future thefts.

And yeah, I'm totally serious. I'm not real big on thieves in case you hadn't figured that out yet. But I'm pretty fond of reducing their ability to repeat their crime.

[Anthony]

So it's somehow my fault that there's a lot of people here who think it's a-ok
to take things without paying for them, regardless of whether you have any right to them?

Well damn, if you're at that point, where me being critical of indefensible behavior is what's wrong in this thread ... just damn, I'm sorry to say that I don't really see much hope for you either.

re: the 3 strikes bit -- As I alluded to earlier, I was really soft-selling my position a little bit. I'd really honestly prefer they just be shot twice in the back of the head as a deterrent for future thefts.

And yeah, I'm totally serious. I'm not real big on thieves in case you hadn't figured that out yet. But I'm pretty fond of reducing their ability to repeat their crime.

lol, you're amusing. you're actually pretty funny once one stops taking you seriously. well done.

[Axxon]

Well, if you want to know the truth, I figure outright advocation of executing them for their abject failure to teach anything resembling an adequate set of ethics or morality to their children would probably be more than some of the bedwetters here could take, I figured I'd go with the lesser (albeit increasingly ineffective) route here just to be kind.

Well, that's simply because, and you know the truth, that statement would be a striking demonstration that you, yourself, had never learned anything resembling a code of ethics or morality yourself. Well, never learned them as anything more than words anyway. Words to be used simply when they serve you but to be discarded whenever something unpleasant entered your world view. I figured you were smart enough not to want to go there.

[Chubby]

So it's somehow my fault that there's a lot of people here who think it's a-ok
to take things without paying for them, regardless of whether you have any right to them?

Well damn, if you're at that point, where me being critical of indefensible behavior is what's wrong in this thread ... just damn, I'm sorry to say that I don't really see much hope for you either.

re: the 3 strikes bit -- As I alluded to earlier, I was really soft-selling my position a little bit. I'd really honestly prefer they just be shot twice in the back of the head as a deterrent for future thefts.

And yeah, I'm totally serious. I'm not real big on thieves in case you hadn't figured that out yet. But I'm pretty fond of reducing their ability to repeat their crime.
so you're advocating shooting the RIAA twice in the back of the head too right? I mean, they are stealing/extorting money from people.

[panerd]

To play devil's advocate here, and I don't know much about the case so please correct me if I am wrong, the posters here seem to put no credence in what Jon is saying but everything with the mom.

#1) You guys beleive the mom when she says it wasn't even her kid but her kid's friend. Funny I have never heard a parent use that excuse before. 100-1 odds it was her kid that downloaded the music.

#2) You act like this kid and mom are being sued because they downloaded a shitty copy of "Enter Sandman" and Metallica got mad and stuck the record company on them. Maybe the kid had the entire MCA music collection on his hard drive.

I think $150,000 sounds steep, but I think the mom sounds just as full of shit as the record company. If it is just 1 song, please correct me. I admit I haven't read up much on the case because like Jon I don't justify stealing via computer just because it easier than stealing from Best Buy or Walmart.

[illinifan999]

Give a guy a little time here, it's tough to catch every single post + watch the rally in Baton Rouge + have to sort through so much crap from so many posters already on ignore just to catch even a portion of the steaming bullshit shoveled in my direction. I answered your first one, I didn't notice the speeding thing until later. Feel free to file suit if you desire.

Yep, I've got a whopping one whole speeding ticket in 38 years.
Wasn't in a stolen car though.

From your question, I'm guessing you're trying to apply some sort of "any crime" generality standard & if that's your belief, by all means go for it. But that's not what I've said here, I believe I've been pretty specific about the theft aspect being the part I'm talking about in this thread. It's certainly not the only crime I lean toward harsh, or even capital, punishment for ... but that's also not the same as me advocating extreme prejudice as punishment for all crimes either (which, just guessing here, is where you were trying to go with this).
So you've broken a law. You deserve to spend at least 1 year in jail, plus community service. After all, what you did put more lives in danger than downloading songs.

[Tekneek]

So I'm guessing you have no problem with someone spending their life in prison for going 4 miles over the speed limit right? It may be a petty crime, but fuck once we put those punks in jail I'll bet the streets are much more safe!

Personal experience says the vast majority of speeders are driving luxury vehicles, so that would have a very interesting effect on this country. Let's try it! ;)

[Tekneek]

#1) You guys beleive the mom when she says it wasn't even her kid but her kid's friend. Funny I have never heard a parent use that excuse before. 100-1 odds it was her kid that downloaded the music.

Then she got lucky. Why didn't you offer to bring your statistical expertise to the court to help the RIAA?

#2) You act like this kid and mom are being sued because they downloaded a shitty copy of "Enter Sandman" and Metallica got mad and stuck the record company on them. Maybe the kid had the entire MCA music collection on his hard drive.

Maybe, but where is the evidence?

I think $150,000 sounds steep, but I think the mom sounds just as full of shit as the record company. If it is just 1 song, please correct me. I admit I haven't read up much on the case because like Jon I don't justify stealing via computer just because it easier than stealing from Best Buy or Walmart.

If the RIAA is a sleazebag, why is it wrong to act like one when they are coming after you?

[Tekneek]

so you're advocating shooting the RIAA twice in the back of the head too right? I mean, they are stealing/extorting money from people.

Not totally. They are doing it under the guise of a legal organization. Of course, if their claims had merits, they should be winning these cases, right?

[Crapshoot]

Tsk tsk, crapper, here I was giving you credit for being at least a little smarter than this.

At no point that I recall have you seen me put right of property above all other concerns. Damn, I even took the time to try to give you an honest explanation of how I reconcile the two situations.

Ah well, my own fault, I shoulda known better than to even bother with you I guess. My bad, I'll try to do better in the future.

Yeah, I made this reply before I read yours JIMGA - thus the post. When I read your longer post, I did respond to the points in question once you clarified.

[Flasch186]

just so everyone has the proper perspective, JIMG is a die hard Republican. So I implore you to examine his views and file them properly into where those views line up...Left or Right? Just something to think about. :)

[Masked]

Jon, the greater good in the file sharing case is to allow the free exchanage of music! By your own logic you should be in favor of file sharing. File sharing allows more people to listen to more music, and there has been no evidence that it ultimately cuts into the profits of musicians. Musicians benefit from file sharing through increased exposure, consumers get more music, and the greater good is served.
Everyone who tries to justify file sharing has completely missed the point of these cases. The case is not about whether or not the free-exchange of music is good for society or not. The RIAA represents those who own the music. The music companies can do whatever they want with the music and everyone has to play by whatever rules they set. If you don’t like the rules, you have the right to not listen to their music. You do not have the right to steal their music.

And lastly why do the music companies own the music - because the musicians VOLUNTARILY gave up their rights in exchange for money.

[Masked]

just so everyone has the proper perspective, JIMG is a die hard Republican. So I implore you to examine his views and file them properly into where those views line up...Left or Right? Just something to think about. :)
Well I am a die hard liberal, and I think the RIAA is well within their rights to sue people who steal music from them. Judging by the number of people who continue to steal music, the RIAA has not been strong enough in their pursuits.

[Blackadar]

HEY JIMG

I thought you said that you would agree to stop posting here if I did. I agreed to your terms - my last post was on 9/21! But we now can all see that you are full of HOT AIR and that your word means nothing. I guess for all of that jackbooted, kill 'em all, law-and-order crap that you spout, you won't even honor your word. How feeble is that?

Thank you for proving that you're a fraud.

[cody8200]

And you are ... who exactly? Mr 400 posts in 5 years & oh so knowledgable at, what is it, 23 years old?

Tell ya what, when I need an opinion from you, I'll give it to you. Until then, how about going & doing your homework or something, as long as you STFU it really doesn't matter much to me.


Boy, you need a beat down. Fools dont get respect no matter how old they are. You think because you have a million posts that your better than someone? I've been a member just as long, I just haven't had as much bullshit to say. I'll tell YOU what, if I met you and you spewed your bullshit I think you'd get a backhand to the mouth.

[Anthony]

my nipples are perking up at this latest display. this thread needs more cursing.

[wade moore]

Everyone who tries to justify file sharing has completely missed the point of these cases. The case is not about whether or not the free-exchange of music is good for society or not. The RIAA represents those who own the music. The music companies can do whatever they want with the music and everyone has to play by whatever rules they set. If you don’t like the rules, you have the right to not listen to their music. You do not have the right to steal their music.

And lastly why do the music companies own the music - because the musicians VOLUNTARILY gave up their rights in exchange for money.
You posted essentially what I wanted to say...

This is all going to get muddled in the specific merits of this case and the debates going on with JiMG right now..

But.. anyone who tries to defend the right to d/l music for without compensating the appropriate people is way of base imo...

How they should be policed/punished can be up for debate, but try to argue that it is 'ok' is just absurd...

[Tekneek]

The only way I would be able to rationalise it would be if I want to download some items that the record company has made unavailable. If I contacted them and they refused to sell it to me, I would not feel bad about acquiring it any way I could. They get just as much, in terms of royalties, from me if I somehow get it for "free" or from someone else as a used copy.

[cody8200]

So what do you guys think of the legality of sites like http://allofmp3.com which does pay royalties to artists but costs only 10 cents per song or so? For example, a cd costs about 1.50 or so. It's a russian site but I think the a high percentage of its users are americans.

[SirFozzie]

It's legal there, due to a loophole in the Russian Law. Dunno (and no one really does) the legality here in the States.

[Huckleberry]

I worked straight from the quoted portion, specifically

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">... it held the mother couldn't be held to be liable for letting her daughter share music online. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's the basis for my "comprehension" of the information, I used what was stated in plain black letters. The ruling, as described there, does not indicate anything about a claim of another user being involved was a part of the decision.

Frankly, if she's done this piss-poor a job of parenting, I'm not exactly inclined toward believing her claims of shocked innocence in the first place.Okay, so perhaps it wasn't a lack of reading comprehension combined with stupidity, but moreso laziness combined with stupidity.

You took at face value the journalistic writeup without reading the available and linked court transcript from a followup post.

16 MS. SANTANGELO: I realized when I looked at this that
17 the downloads, I guess they call it Exhibit B, the screen name
18 that this Kazaa was under doesn't belong to anyone in my
19 family. And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
21 that my children had downloaded anything. Apparently, it
22 belongs to a friend of my son, who is now 14. 8 MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.
9 I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the
10 record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa
11 that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really
12 can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week,
13 started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked
14 into it before, but --
15 THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
16 MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to
17 do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.And, of course, your quoted statement refers to the finding of the court, not the argued position of the mother.

[Raiders Army]

my nipples are perking up at this latest display. this thread needs more cursing.
Fuck this fucking shit. Cocksuckers need to shit on the fucking assholes who fuck the cunt downloaders. Goddam pussy ball-lickers can fucking fist the fuck out of the twat-sweating record companies. Motherfucking dickless shit-smelling fucks can also stop blowing their jizz on their titties for all I care.

[Galaxy]

This thread is funny in a sad way. Reminds of the Family Guy eposide where the Fox execs break into Peter's house and shoot apart his VCR because he didn't have the written consent of FOX, but did have the NFL consent.

[Anthony]

Fuck this fucking shit. Cocksuckers need to shit on the fucking assholes who fuck the cunt downloaders. Goddam pussy ball-lickers can fucking fist the fuck out of the twat-sweating record companies. Motherfucking dickless shit-smelling fucks can also stop blowing their jizz on their titties for all I care.

i just ejaculated in my pants. well done soldier.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll tell YOU what, if I met you and you spewed your bullshit I think you'd get a backhand to the mouth.

And I think it'd be the last mistake you ever made.

[SackAttack]

And I think it'd be the last mistake you ever made.

It would have to be a mistake before it could be the last one, Jon.

[cody8200]

And I think it'd be the last mistake you ever made.

Oooh death threats from an old man. Doesn't really scare me. However, I don't think Skydog allows death threats on his board does he?

[Blackadar]

And I think it'd be the last mistake you ever made.

Big talk from a little man who own words mean nothing. Gutless punk.

[Tekneek]

Wow. There is nothing more exciting than tough keyboard talk.

[cartman]

Coming way too late on this one, but I think this is the bed the RIAA got themselves into. They themselves promoted the idea of the music being cheap with their wholesale agreements with Columbia House and BMG. When music is promoted as "12 albums for a penny", it put the psychological seed that says it is basically free anyway.

As Abraham Lincoln once said "the best way to get a bad law overturned is to start the rigorous enforcement of it" (paraphrased). The backlash against the RIAA has been great, due to their overzealous pursuit.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah.. this thread ran downhill right off the cliff into the ol catcus plants, didn't it?

[ISiddiqui]

It would have to be a mistake before it could be the last one, Jon.
Word.

[JeffNights]

i just ejaculated in my pants. well done soldier.



THAT WAS FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!! I JUST LAUGHED SO DAMN HARD!!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

After reading part of this, I really can't believe y'all are still bothering conversing with Jga. I mean really. With the things coming off his keyboard, you would think he was a talk radio guy going for ratings, or something.

I stopped awhile back.

[Flasch186]

Well I am a die hard liberal, and I think the RIAA is well within their rights to sue people who steal music from them. Judging by the number of people who continue to steal music, the RIAA has not been strong enough in their pursuits.


Fair enough but I havnt seen you be so violent in your statements or threatening, some would say even scary. Ill take a you over a JIMG any day based on psychology alone.

[Butter]

After reading part of this, I really can't believe y'all are still bothering conversing with Jga. I mean really. With the things coming off his keyboard, you would think he was a talk radio guy going for ratings, or something.

I stopped awhile back.

What he said. Sometimes I think he pictures himself as sort of an internet Rush, only harsher and without all the meds.

[Subby]

This thread is now about funny pwn3d pictures.

http://members.chello.nl/%7Ewvanoverbruggen/pwned.jpg

[sovereignstar]

http://www.the-dkbl.com/keepers/shorty.jpg

[Drake]

But the real issue is that intellectual property is much different from real property. Someone takes a song off the internets, that doesn't preclude someone else from owning it or listening to it. In fact, there is a greater benefit to society the more people that are able to listen to it, which just isn't the case with real property.

Actually, the real issue is that intellectual property is owned by the creator of that property and the owner of that property has the sole right to decide who can be granted residual (i.e. copy) ownership. IP creators lease that right to publishers and recording companies with the contracted understanding that the distributor will abide by their wishes (the IP creator's wishes being reflected in the publishing/recording contract). Unless the IP creator says that downloading is okay, then it isn't. It is stealing rights from that IP creator.

Downloading free shit may be good for society, but it isn't good for the IP creator unless the IP creator agrees to give their shit away for free. Arguably, downloading shit for free is actually good for the IP creator in the long run, but bottom line, the IP creator is the one who has the *right* to decide how they're going to manage their property (intellectual or otherwise).

Check out Cory Doctorow for someone who is having smashing success giving his shit away for free (www.craphound.com). Which is to say that as an IP creator, I don't mind giving away free shit at all. I think giving away free shit is an outstanding business model for long term success, but I don't have the right to deprive other IP creators of that right if they don't want to give it up.

[Drake]

dola...

It occurs to me that if downloading music IP for free is okay, then it would also be okay for someone to post a link or set up a website to distribute hacked executables of FOF so those who might want it but don't have the money or just don't want to part with the money could get it for free. I mean, if free IP is good for society and downloading IP isn't theft, no one is actually getting hurt -- certainly not Solecismic, who would benefit from the increased exposure of his product to folks who might not otherwise have been aware of it.

Right?

[MrBigglesworth]

dola...

It occurs to me that if downloading music IP for free is okay, then it would also be okay for someone to post a link or set up a website to distribute hacked executables of FOF so those who might want it but don't have the money or just don't want to part with the money could get it for free. I mean, if free IP is good for society and downloading IP isn't theft, no one is actually getting hurt -- certainly not Solecismic, who would benefit from the increased exposure of his product to folks who might not otherwise have been aware of it.

Right?
You are missing a very crucial point. If all computer programs were suddenly made free to trade at will over the Internet, most computer programs would fail to get written in the first place. That would be bad not only for the bottom line of the programmers, but also for the consumer. There would still be good programs out there (OpenOffice comes to mind), but it would be an overall negative effect. Big motion pictures are the same way. If they were allowed to be freely traded on the Internet, the movies wouldn't make any money, and they wouldn't be made, because nobody is going to spend $50 million and a year of their time making something to give out for free.

But what about music? If music were made to be free all of a sudden, would music stop being produced? Of course not! Music is so easy and cheap to make, especially with today's technology, that there would still be a huge amount of music out there. People are creative, and just as they create art and write blogs, they will produce music. In fact, you can argue that without the huge marketing machines that are driven by profit, that there would be a GREATER diversity of music. You see that already with tiny bands getting their music out over P2P programs.

Think of the effort needed to produce Madden 2006, or Jurassic Park, and then compare it to the effort needed to produce the latest Kelly Clarkson song. It's not even comparable.

[Drake]

You are missing a very crucial point. If all computer programs were suddenly made free to trade at will over the Internet, most computer programs would fail to get written in the first place. That would be bad not only for the bottom line of the programmers, but also for the consumer. There would still be good programs out there (OpenOffice comes to mind), but it would be an overall negative effect. Big motion pictures are the same way. If they were allowed to be freely traded on the Internet, the movies wouldn't make any money, and they wouldn't be made, because nobody is going to spend $50 million and a year of their time making something to give out for free.

But what about music? If music were made to be free all of a sudden, would music stop being produced? Of course not! Music is so easy and cheap to make, especially with today's technology, that there would still be a huge amount of music out there. People are creative, and just as they create art and write blogs, they will produce music. In fact, you can argue that without the huge marketing machines that are driven by profit, that there would be a GREATER diversity of music. You see that already with tiny bands getting their music out over P2P programs.

Think of the effort needed to produce Madden 2006, or Jurassic Park, and then compare it to the effort needed to produce the latest Kelly Clarkson song. It's not even comparable.


But I'm not talking about Madden 2006. I'm talking about FOF -- a one man product. I spent a year writing my last novel in my spare time. Jim could just have easily spent a year coding the latest iteration of FOF in his spare time while working full time elsewhere. By that logic, small fish developers/writers/musicians shouldn't be able to squawk when someone else decides to give their IP away for free, because they're benefitting in the long run.

Again, this isn't to say that think the Free Shit Distribution Model (FSDM from here on out) is a bad choice -- it's worked for Cory Doctorow and it seems to be working for Shaun Sullivan and Puresim -- I'm just saying that it should be the IP creator's choice and not the choice of some dickwad kid abusing mom and dad's broadband connection.

[Subby]

You are missing a very crucial point. If all computer programs were suddenly made free to trade at will over the Internet, most computer programs would fail to get written in the first place. That would be bad not only for the bottom line of the programmers, but also for the consumer. There would still be good programs out there (OpenOffice comes to mind), but it would be an overall negative effect. Big motion pictures are the same way. If they were allowed to be freely traded on the Internet, the movies wouldn't make any money, and they wouldn't be made, because nobody is going to spend $50 million and a year of their time making something to give out for free.

But what about music? If music were made to be free all of a sudden, would music stop being produced? Of course not! Music is so easy and cheap to make, especially with today's technology, that there would still be a huge amount of music out there. People are creative, and just as they create art and write blogs, they will produce music. In fact, you can argue that without the huge marketing machines that are driven by profit, that there would be a GREATER diversity of music. You see that already with tiny bands getting their music out over P2P programs.

Think of the effort needed to produce Madden 2006, or Jurassic Park, and then compare it to the effort needed to produce the latest Kelly Clarkson song. It's not even comparable. You have got to be kidding me.

Who are you to judge what is difficult to produce and what isn't? Or why that even matters. Who are you to decide what is best for someone else's intellectual property?

One's perception (real or imagined or yanked out of their ass) about how "difficult" it is to produce intellectual property has absolutely no bearing on the creator's right to control how said IP is disseminated.

[sterlingice]

^^ What Subby said ^^

SI

[Glengoyne]

Sorry Fozzie, the only assholes I see in the story a miserable 13 y/o thief/accessory to theft, a mother who clearly hasn't taught her child right from wrong, and a judge who did his best to let them get away with it. If all 3 died tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
Actually, I don't have any problem at all with what the judge said here. It isn't quite as much of an endorsement or condemnation as Fozzie may think it is either. Simply put, if you are sued, or sue someone else, the court dictates how those issues are to be resolved. If there is to be arbitration/mediation, as is now often required by some courts, then it has to be done by court appointed or sanctioned parties. You can't sue someone, and then think the court is going to allow you to resolve the matter through your very own arbitration system.

I'm all in with the mother and 13 year old though.

I've read maybe three posts in this thread, so I hope I haven't missed too much before I responded.

[MrBigglesworth]

You have got to be kidding me.

Who are you to judge what is difficult to produce and what isn't? Or why that even matters. Who are you to decide what is best for someone else's intellectual property?

One's perception (real or imagined or yanked out of their ass) about how "difficult" it is to produce intellectual property has absolutely no bearing on the creator's right to control how said IP is disseminated.
But I'm not talking about Madden 2006. I'm talking about FOF -- a one man product. I spent a year writing my last novel in my spare time. Jim could just have easily spent a year coding the latest iteration of FOF in his spare time while working full time elsewhere. By that logic, small fish developers/writers/musicians shouldn't be able to squawk when someone else decides to give their IP away for free, because they're benefitting in the long run.
You are both drawing the wrong conclusions from what I said, only Subby does it in a more spectacular, more rude way. The point isn't to decide what is difficult to produce or not, the point is to decide what would be made anyway. The difficulty of producing it is merely a facet of what determines what would be made. So it isn't a matter of determining the cut-off for difficulty level, it is a matter of weighing the benefits of everyone having access to something compared to the costs of some things not being produced. In the case of computer programs, I don't think there is any argument that negative costs outweigh the positive benefits. FOF probably could have been produced for the love of it, but it isn't likely. And there is no doubt that programs like Photoshop, Madden, etc, would never be produced.

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits. IP laws are in place because without them, nobody would develop content, which would be bad for the consumer. Twenty years ago, music had to be protected because of the large cost involved with recording the music, etching it onto records, shipping it out to stores, etc. Now a song can be recorded directly onto a computer, uploaded to a server, and copied a million times at a bare minimum of expense. The landscape of the industry has changed. And let's also not forget that musicians can still make a great deal of money by playing live events, it isn't like their talent wouldn't be worth anything. It is the music executives and distribution network that loses out.

[Maple Leafs]

Wow, this thread actually got back on track.

(And Drake is 100% correct, of course. The people who create something should get to decide how much if anything to charge for it. The rest of us don't get to take it for free and then shrug our shoulders and mutter about how the landscape has changed. We get to decide if the product is worth enough for us to pay the asking price, but we don't get to just take it if we decide we want it free.)

[rkmsuf]

Uniformed schmoe question:

Can't the parties concerned with "stealing" create a medium that prevents it?

[Chubby]

Uniformed schmoe question:

Can't the parties concerned with "stealing" create a medium that prevents it?Probably impossible.

[Drake]

I think we disagree fundamentally, MrB. I'm still of the opinion that IP laws were put into effect to protect the right of production and distribution, not those of the consumer. Thus "copy" "right" is a statement of who has been granted the right to copy a piece of IP (or who has the right to lend those distribution & production rights to others) and who hasn't.

I enjoy this discussion every time we have it, but I don't think we're ever going to be able to do anything but agree to disagree. I suppose the oddest part is that I personally tend to agree with you in theory about the wisdom of FSDM (both culturally and financially), but in my eyes, the IP creator's rights always trump the rights of the consumer (especially one who isn't paying).

[QuikSand]

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits.

I think I understand what you want to say here -- but I disagree with it. Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other protections for inventors or creators are clearly designed to protect profits. Yes, it may be argued that the ultimate goal is (or may have been) to encourage said invention and production, but you can't dismiss the profit motive from being central to all of this -- it's a system of incentives, and the incentive is profit. You can't just remove that essential link in the chain and suggest that it doesn't mater because the real goal was continued supply.

[rkmsuf]

Probably impossible.


Not even level 164 bit super high def major badass encrytion? Or something?

[Chubby]

Not even level 164 bit super high def major badass encrytion? Or something?
Didn't you ever watch the movie Mercury Rising when it's on USA or something?

[sterlingice]

Not even level 164 bit super high def major badass encrytion? Or something?
Have we been able to come up with stores that people can't steal from?

SI

[rkmsuf]

Didn't you ever watch the movie Mercury Rising when it's on USA or something?


I'm just saying...seems like there could be a way besides this nickel and dime, ham and egg half hearted effort if it was really a big deal.

[sterlingice]

Have we been able to come up with stores that people can't steal from?
And let's take that a step further. If someone had invented a foolproof way for stores to be created where nothing could be stolen, but, say Wal-Mart figures it's cheaper to go with the old model (ie they lose $1M per year in shoplifted merchandise but the method costs $10M) than the new, do you still not prosecute someone who steals from them because stealing is still illegal?

SI

[BrianD]

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits.

I've got to raise the bullshit flag on this one. IP laws were put into effect to protect the owner of the IP. The benefit to the comsumers - the fact that there is something to consume - is a secondary benefit.

[rkmsuf]

And let's take that a step further. If someone had invented a foolproof way for stores to be created where nothing could be stolen, but, say Wal-Mart figures it's cheaper to go with the old model (ie they lose $1M per year in shoplifted merchandise but the method costs $10M) than the new, do you still not prosecute someone who steals from them because stealing is still illegal?

SI


If the fishing tackle is sitting right out front without a sole within 500 yards I say take the fishing tackle.

[Subby]

You are both drawing the wrong conclusions from what I said, only Subby does it in a more spectacular, more rude way. The point isn't to decide what is difficult to produce or not, the point is to decide what would be made anyway. The difficulty of producing it is merely a facet of what determines what would be made. So it isn't a matter of determining the cut-off for difficulty level, it is a matter of weighing the benefits of everyone having access to something compared to the costs of some things not being produced. In the case of computer programs, I don't think there is any argument that negative costs outweigh the positive benefits. FOF probably could have been produced for the love of it, but it isn't likely. And there is no doubt that programs like Photoshop, Madden, etc, would never be produced.

IP laws were put into effect to benefit the consumers, not to protect anyone's profits. IP laws are in place because without them, nobody would develop content, which would be bad for the consumer. Twenty years ago, music had to be protected because of the large cost involved with recording the music, etching it onto records, shipping it out to stores, etc. Now a song can be recorded directly onto a computer, uploaded to a server, and copied a million times at a bare minimum of expense. The landscape of the industry has changed. And let's also not forget that musicians can still make a great deal of money by playing live events, it isn't like their talent wouldn't be worth anything. It is the music executives and distribution network that loses out.
Rude? Please. I was practically frenching you I was so polite.

Intellectual property laws exist to protect the creator of said intellectual property. Distilled to their essence, they allow the creator to determine what happens to his or her property. Not you. Not me. They have nothing to do with the consumer other than limiting the freedom they can exercise with result to someone else's property.

Just because a musician can make money playing a song live does not mean they rescind any rights to the songs they own. And if an up and coming band chooses to release their music for free, that is their right.

I don't disagree with you at all about the landscape of music changing - I just don't think that it has any impact on whether a musician has to give away their art, just because it is easy to do.

It just seems like you building a strawman with the whole cost of production and distribution argument.

(w00t, I finally got to use that term!)

[SirFozzie]

If it can be heard by the ear, or seen by the eye, it can be copied.

If it can be read by Joe Average's Computer. It can be broken.

That's not going to change for a very long time.

[SirFozzie]

And there's nobody in this thread who says, "Yes, stealing from the RIAA is right" Don't try to spin that we're not. Just that the RIAA's response has been so hamhanded and stupid (remember them filing a DMCA Complaint UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, that someone was sharing Usher songs when it turned out it was Dr. Usher's class tapes?), and flat out lying, that people are taking enjoyment out of them looking like morons.

[rkmsuf]

If it can be heard by the ear, or seen by the eye, it can be copied.

If it can be read by Joe Average's Computer. It can be broken.

That's not going to change for a very long time.


So get over it people. Use that to your advantage.

[Zippo]

Give a guy a little time here, it's tough to catch every single post + watch the rally in Baton Rouge + have to sort through so much crap from so many posters already on ignore just to catch even a portion of the steaming bullshit shoveled in my direction. I answered your first one, I didn't notice the speeding thing until later. Feel free to file suit if you desire.

Yep, I've got a whopping one whole speeding ticket in 38 years.
Wasn't in a stolen car though.

From your question, I'm guessing you're trying to apply some sort of "any crime" generality standard & if that's your belief, by all means go for it. But that's not what I've said here, I believe I've been pretty specific about the theft aspect being the part I'm talking about in this thread. It's certainly not the only crime I lean toward harsh, or even capital, punishment for ... but that's also not the same as me advocating extreme prejudice as punishment for all crimes either (which, just guessing here, is where you were trying to go with this).
exactly, speeding is much MORE serious. You do realize that car accidents are the number (1 or 2) killer of people today right? I think all people who speed should be sentenced for life. :rolleyes:

[Drake]

And there's nobody in this thread who says, "Yes, stealing from the RIAA is right" Don't try to spin that we're not. Just that the RIAA's response has been so hamhanded and stupid (remember them filing a DMCA Complaint UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, that someone was sharing Usher songs when it turned out it was Dr. Usher's class tapes?), and flat out lying, that people are taking enjoyment out of them looking like morons.

Oh, I agree with you completely. The RIAA not only made the wrong decision about how to handle illegal file sharing in the first place, they've continued to make the wrong decision (as well as making the whole issue a great deal worse in the process). Someone really needs to tap the head of their enforcement division on the forehead with a frying pan until s/he gets a clue. Alienating one's consumer base is never a sound business decision.

[MrBigglesworth]

I've got to raise the bullshit flag on this one. IP laws were put into effect to protect the owner of the IP. The benefit to the comsumers - the fact that there is something to consume - is a secondary benefit.
(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:
the Congress shall have power . . . 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
Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:
...patents and copyrights are exclusive rights of limited duration, granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works.
...the court holds, based on the type and context of use by NIH and NLM as shown by the record, that there has been no infringement, that the challenged use is 'fair' in view of the combination of all of the factors involved in consideration of 'fair' or 'unfair' use enumerated in the opinion, that the record fails to show a significant detriment to plaintiff but demonstrates injury to medical and scientific research if photocopying of this kind is held unlawful, and that there is a need for congressional treatment of the problems of photocopying.

[sabotai]

exactly, speeding is much MORE serious. You do realize that car accidents are the number (1 or 2) killer of people today right? I think all people who speed should be sentenced for life. :rolleyes:
FWIW, it's maybe 5 or 6, not 1 or 2. Heart Disease is #1, Cancer is #2, Stroke is #3, Chronic lower respiratory diseases is #4 and "Accidents" is #5, but that includes all accidents, not just motor vehicle accidents. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm).

But, Motor Vehicle accidents are the #1 killer in people aged 15-24.

[MrBigglesworth]

They have nothing to do with the consumer other than limiting the freedom they can exercise with result to someone else's property...It just seems like you building a strawman with the whole cost of production and distribution argument.
That first part I quoted is completely wrong, as I explained in a previous post.

As for the strawman, what are you talking about? Can you explain that a little more?

[Subby]

As for the strawman, what are you talking about? Can you explain that a little more? That copyright infringement or intellectual property has anything to do with whether said property is easier or cheaper to produce than something else. Your argument that a piece of software has more protection than a Kelly Clarkson cd because it is easy to produce and distribute has no bearing on the issue at hand.

It's all about who owns the property and their right to do with it how they see fit.

[BrianD]

(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:

Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:

I still disagee with you. IP laws are in place to protect the owners of IP. The duration of these laws is limited for the good of the public.

[Drake]

(This applies to several people's posts, but I'm just quoting this one because it is the most direct)

Take a look at the US Constitution:

Right there is the impetus for all copyright law in the United States. The reason is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", not to protect the creator, not to protect the profits of the distribution network. It has been upheld by the courts, for example:

I'm not going to rehash Quik's post about protecting the ability to profit being a central link in this chain that ultimately results in the public good.

That said, I'd change your third citation to something that isn't a fair use case. That's a whole 'nother can of worms. :)

[MrBigglesworth]

(And Drake is 100% correct, of course. The people who create something should get to decide how much if anything to charge for it. The rest of us don't get to take it for free and then shrug our shoulders and mutter about how the landscape has changed. We get to decide if the product is worth enough for us to pay the asking price, but we don't get to just take it if we decide we want it free.)
Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

At one point, there was a benefit to copyrighting music. It cost money to record it and put it on a phonograph and ship that phonograph across the country. Those phonographs were rivalrous, i.e. if someone owned a particular phonograph someone else couldn't own that same physical object as well. But cover bands could still play it, you could still hum it, etc, and nobody could tell you you couldn't. The information, the nonrivalrous good, was always free to use.

[MrBigglesworth]

I still disagee with you. IP laws are in place to protect the owners of IP. The duration of these laws is limited for the good of the public.
What evidence do you have to place up against the US Constitution and the US justice system?

[BrianD]

What evidence do you have to place up against the US Constitution and the US justice system?

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.

[MrBigglesworth]

That copyright infringement or intellectual property has anything to do with whether said property is easier or cheaper to produce than something else. Your argument that a piece of software has more protection than a Kelly Clarkson cd because it is easy to produce and distribute has no bearing on the issue at hand.

It's all about who owns the property and their right to do with it how they see fit.
I never said anything about CD's. CD's are rivalrous goods, that fall under real property. Secondly, ease of production is not the bottom line, as I have explained previously. The bottom line is the content's ability to be produced in the absence of profit. And ease of production definitely comes into that. Consider microsoft's calculator. Would they ever charge for that? Of course not, because someone could easily make a free one.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.
I ask again, what evidence do you have that you are correct? There is no mention at all in the Constitution about profiting from their discoveries, just mention of the advancement of science and the arts.

[BrianD]

Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

At one point, there was a benefit to copyrighting music. It cost money to record it and put it on a phonograph and ship that phonograph across the country. Those phonographs were rivalrous, i.e. if someone owned a particular phonograph someone else couldn't own that same physical object as well. But cover bands could still play it, you could still hum it, etc, and nobody could tell you you couldn't. The information, the nonrivalrous good, was always free to use.

...as shown by the fact that nobody ever got in trouble for bringing a tape recorder to a concert or a video camera to a movie theater. We can sing a song or act out a movie...we can't replay others singing a song or acting out a movie without their permission.

[SirFozzie]

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying you are reading it wrong. Copyrights and patents have always existed to protect the inventor/creator so they can adequately profit off of their creations. The limits to these copyrights/patents exist for the good of humanity so people can springboard off of the works of others.

Except for Disney, who keeps sponsoring a new amendment whenever Mickey Mouse gets close to the copyright ending, to push it back, for example. They want the right to forever make money off their copyrights (most of which they didn't even create, but stole from fairly tales)

[BrianD]

I ask again, what evidence do you have that you are correct? There is no mention at all in the Constitution about profiting from their discoveries, just mention of the advancement of science and the arts.

I have the same evidence that you do. I read everything you quoted and I believe it supports my position. The court first court ruling you showed made important (in my reading of the finding), that the limit of the rights for the good of society, not the rights themselves.

Reading your facts, I get a different interpretation.

[BrianD]

dola

I'd be willing to see in informal poll happen to see which of us has the common interpretation. Mine could be wrong.

[BrianD]

Except for Disney, who keeps sponsoring a new amendment whenever Mickey Mouse gets close to the copyright ending, to push it back, for example. They want the right to forever make money off their copyrights (most of which they didn't even create, but stole from fairly tales)

This is a related, but seperate discussion. I have no problem seeing Mickey fall into the realm of public domain.

[MrBigglesworth]

...as shown by the fact that nobody ever got in trouble for bringing a tape recorder to a concert or a video camera to a movie theater. We can sing a song or act out a movie...we can't replay others singing a song or acting out a movie without their permission.
People that bring tape recorders or video cameras to movie theaters intend to sell the information, which is making money off of another's work. Furthermore, those are private places that can enforce their own rules of what to bring in. We can also replay a movie whenever we want, or do you not own a VCR?

[MrBigglesworth]

dola

I'd be willing to see in informal poll happen to see which of us has the common interpretation. Mine could be wrong.
Are you a big "conventional wisdom" fan? I recommend Freakonomics, it's an eye-opener.

[MrBigglesworth]

I have the same evidence that you do. I read everything you quoted and I believe it supports my position. The court first court ruling you showed made important (in my reading of the finding), that the limit of the rights for the good of society, not the rights themselves.

Reading your facts, I get a different interpretation.
Are you serious here? "granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works." That's pretty much as clear cut in favor of my argument as can be, since my argument is that the rights are granted in order to serve the public interest in promoting the creation and dissemination of new works. Nowhere does it mention anything about it being for the creators profit, which is what I understand your view to be. Were you joking, or am I misunderstanding your view?

[BrianD]

People that bring tape recorders or video cameras to movie theaters intend to sell the information, which is making money off of another's work.

If that was the case, people would only get in trouble post-transaction. Otherwise you are dealing with thought-crime.

Furthermore, those are private places that can enforce their own rules of what to bring in. We can also replay a movie whenever we want, or do you not own a VCR?

Purchase of the tape/DVD/CD constitutes permission to replay. It is part of the purchase contract. I believe courts have already declared time-shifting part of fair-use. I don't know what the legalities are for recording something and then keeping it forever, but I also can't recall it ever being challenged in court.

[Drake]

Why not, for nonrivalrous goods? Have you ever taken a physics course? Did you use E-mc^2? Did you get permission from Einstein to use his formula? Of course not, because his ideas were never copyrighted, because to do so would be against the advancement of science, so the government never made laws making it available to be copyrighted.

Nope. Facts are not copyrightable.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/nba.html

[MrBigglesworth]

If that was the case, people would only get in trouble post-transaction. Otherwise you are dealing with thought-crime.
I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.

Purchase of the tape/DVD/CD constitutes permission to replay. It is part of the purchase contract. I believe courts have already declared time-shifting part of fair-use. I don't know what the legalities are for recording something and then keeping it forever, but I also can't recall it ever being challenged in court.
I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nope. Facts are not copyrightable.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/nba.html
Substitute "social psychology" and "game theory" in there then, it's all the same concept.

[BrianD]

Are you a big "conventional wisdom" fan? I recommend Freakonomics, it's an eye-opener.

No I'm not, I just didn't think it made sense for the two of us to argue about which interpretation was correct. If you say I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge you. If everybody says I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge myself.

[BrianD]

I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

Sure, we get back to fair use here. If you are broadcasting something over the air, or across a cable that I pay for, I have the right to receive that transmission. Permission is given from the IP holder to the broadcast entity via their purchase contract. VCRs are an acceptable way of receiving a broadcast. I guess I'm not really sure what the point of this tangent is.

[SirFozzie]

I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.


I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.

Then you didn't see the story about the folks who were arrested for videotaping a movie? (agreed, they had larcenous intent, but still)

[HomerJSimpson]

I don't think you can be arrested for taping a movie, just thrown out of the theater. And like I said, as private entities theaters are free to follow their own rules.


I was't talking about the purchase of rivalrous goods, I was talking about taping something off the TV as nonrivalrous. And the courts have ruled in favor of VCR's.


A new federal law aimed at discouraging camcorder-equipped movie pirates has snared its first catch.
Federal prosecutors said Curtis Salisbury, 19, pleaded guilty on Monday to using a camcorder to record movies in a St. Louis, Mo., theater and distributing his recording on the Internet.

When Salisbury worked in the box office of a theater, he and others entered the projection booth after-hours and used a camcorder and audio recorder to tape "The Perfect Man" and "Bewitched" in June, according to the plea agreement. Sentencing is scheduled to take place in a San Jose, Calif., federal court Feb. 27.

Salisbury appears to have been the first person prosecuted under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which Congress approved in April in an effort to curb online piracy. One section of the law stipulates that any person who uses an "audiovisual recording device" to tape a movie in a theater can be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for up to three years. The charge of Internet distribution could carry additional punishment.

Although the Department of Justice wasn't divulging many details, a representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California said Salisbury was caught as part of an undercover operation being conducted in the San Francisco area. That investigation, called Operation Copycat, resulted in indictments against four men this summer. Salisbury's recordings, among others, were transmitted to servers in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The movie studios applauded the government's announcement. "We want to thank the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI for their efforts to crack down on movie pirates," said John Malcolm, a vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America and a former Justice Department official. "Their attention to this growing phenomenon is crucial in our fight to protect copyrighted materials."

Applause also came from Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who supported the antipiracy measure in Congress. "This conviction is a victory for America's creators," Smith said. "Copyright thieves are now on notice that stealing intellectual property will not be tolerated."

The stiff criminal penalties were controversial when they were being considered by politicians, with critics saying such punishments, which are usually reserved for violent crimes, may not be the best way to engender respect for copyright law.


It is against Federal law.

[SirFozzie]

This is a related, but seperate discussion. I have no problem seeing Mickey fall into the realm of public domain.

I agree, but again, it ties back into my original point. A lot of people want to see these folks get smacked around because of their arrogance, that the rules apply to Joe Average, but it doesn't to a Disney or an RIAA member or other such companies.

For example.. the Price Fixing settlement that the RIAA had stated that amongst other things, they would donate cd's to libraries. Fair and worthy right?

Not when it turned to a massive CD-Dump that ended up with some libraries receiving receiving double digit copies of things like Whitney Houston's rendition of the national anthem. In other words, the music labels just thumbed their noses at the letter and the spirit of their settlement.

As I said, Schadenfrude. Anything that kicks those bastards in the jimmies is ok by me. Jon might and probably does think I'm wrong for it, but it's plain and simple. Whatever fucks them over (up to a point), is just desserts.

[MrBigglesworth]

No I'm not, I just didn't think it made sense for the two of us to argue about which interpretation was correct. If you say I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge you. If everybody says I am reading something wrong, I'll challenge myself.
I'm still hazy about how a court ruling that says exactly what my interpretation . And I am still looking for any evidence at all that profits are the main intent of IP laws.

Sure, we get back to fair use here. If you are broadcasting something over the air, or across a cable that I pay for, I have the right to receive that transmission. Permission is given from the IP holder to the broadcast entity via their purchase contract. VCRs are an acceptable way of receiving a broadcast. I guess I'm not really sure what the point of this tangent is.
How do you think fair use came about? As a means to advance science and art by sampling copyrighted material. If it was all about profit, as you contend, then the courts would have ruled that an artist would have to pay for any kind of sampling of another artist, or that a person would have to pay to reproduce something, such as taping on a VCR. But that is not the case, the court has consistently ruled for the advancement of science and the arts, because that is exactly what it says in the Constitution. There really is no argument here, it's very clear cut.

[MrBigglesworth]

It is against Federal law.
I'll change what I said slightly: It's not the fact that the person will have a copy of the movie that congress is worried about, it's the fact that this person will be going out and selling the movie. And even if he is just going to distribute it on the Internet, I've mentioned how movies are not the same as music when you are comparing their likelihood to be made if there is no profit incentive.

[wade moore]

Now a song can be recorded directly onto a computer, uploaded to a server, and copied a million times at a bare minimum of expense. The landscape of the industry has changed. And let's also not forget that musicians can still make a great deal of money by playing live events, it isn't like their talent wouldn't be worth anything. It is the music executives and distribution network that loses out.
Ummm...

Where to begin, where to begin?

Do I go the "what about people that cannot afford a computer?" route?

Do I go the "so should all writing (newspapers, novels, penthouse letters, etc) be free?" route?

Do I go the "so should all pieces of artwork which are actually MUCH cheaper to make than any music be free and able to be copied and distributed route?"

Do I go the "you're an idiot who just wants to justify stealing." route?



And those are only some of the many choices... advice? which should I pick?

:rolleyes:

[MrBigglesworth]

Do I go the "what about people that cannot afford a computer?" route?
What about them? More of them have access to a computer than get recording contracts, so the point is moot.

Do I go the "so should all writing (newspapers, novels, penthouse letters, etc) be free?" route?
Most newspapers are free on the Internet, just like I am saying music should be, so that kind of hurts your argument. Novels, as I explained probably a dozen times if you had bothered to read the entire thread, are not music, they take a lot more time to write and I imagine that quality would drop off severely if there was no profit incentive. Furthermore, most people still like to read physical books, which is a rivalrous good.

Do I go the "so should all pieces of artwork which are actually MUCH cheaper to make than any music be free and able to be copied and distributed route?"
Art is rivalrous! Please, read the whole thread before replying.

Do I go the "you're an idiot who just wants to justify stealing." route?
Please give an intelligent response next time before calling someone an idiot. You didn't refute a single one of my points, then went for ad hominem attacks. Let me help you out:

My premises:
1) IP laws are in effect to help the consumer
2) The consumer is helped more by free music distribution
My conclusion:
1) Free music distribution should be legal

To attack that you must argue one of the following:
1) IP are not designed to help the consumer but rather the profits of the creator (which is false just be glancing at the Constitution)
2) The consumer is hurt by having free music distribution (so far nobody has attempted to refute this, I don't think)

[wade moore]

Please show me where in the constitution it shows that IP is designed to help the consumer.

Thanks!

[rkmsuf]

This was never a problem with cassette tapes.

[st.cronin]

To attack that you must argue one of the following:
1) IP are not designed to help the consumer but rather the profits of the creator (which is false just be glancing at the Constitution)
2) The consumer is hurt by having free music distribution (so far nobody has attempted to refute this, I don't think)

Of course the Platonic consumer is helped by free music distribution (except for the damage done to his soul when this free music distribution is done illegally). I don't really want to get into this, but your argument is really silly.

[MrBigglesworth]

Please show me where in the constitution it shows that IP is designed to help the consumer.

Thanks!
READ THE THREAD!

the Congress shall have power . . . 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
Not "to promote the profits of scientists and artists", but "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

[Subby]

Music is nonrivalrous only if its creator/owner wants it to be so. They get to make that decision. Not us. Just like the Washington Post gets to control the information they reproduce on their web site. You know - the articles that have copyrights at the bottom of each page.

Your continued insistence that intellectual property laws exist to protect just the consumer ignore years and years of copyright and trademark law.

[MrBigglesworth]

Of course the Platonic consumer is helped by free music distribution (except for the damage done to his soul when this free music distribution is done illegally). I don't really want to get into this, but your argument is really silly.
Consider free movies for anyone. An initial benefit to the consumer. But then, movies stop being made because there is no money in it, because nobody will spend $100million of their own money just to make a movie. Now all you have are crappy films. A net negative for the consumer, because even though movies are free, there aren't any movies.

But the same can't be said for music. People will not stop making music. Not only can they still get rich from plaing concerts, but the ease in which a song can be produced will keep a healthy supply of new songs on the marketplace.

This kind of calculus is done every time an IP law is considered. It's not "silly" by any stretch of the imagination.

[st.cronin]

READ THE THREAD!


Not "to promote the profits of scientists and artists", but "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

Your interpretation is nonsensical. This goes way beyond a 'reach.'

[MrBigglesworth]

Music is nonrivalrous only if its creator/owner wants it to be so. They get to make that decision. Not us. Just like the Washington Post gets to control the information they reproduce on their web site. You know - the articles that have copyrights at the bottom of each page.
Digital music is nonrivalous independent of what the creator thinks. No diktat can change whether my owning it effects whether someone else can own it.

Your continued insistence that intellectual property laws exist to protect just the consumer ignore years and years of copyright and trademark law.
Then where are those examples? The creators are protected if and when them being protected is a net gain for society, for the consumer. For example if we took away patents for drugs, nobody would produce drugs, so we need to protect the creators' profit. The profit is an incentive to innovate, not an end in and of itself.

[MrBigglesworth]

Your interpretation is nonsensical. This goes way beyond a 'reach.'
Tell that to the Supreme Court. What do you think the idea of IP laws are then? To make sure people make money?

[QuikSand]

Okay, gang. This is not a completely empty argument. You can disagree, and not disparage. There is hope for us yet.

My premises:
1) IP laws are in effect to help the consumer
2) The consumer is helped more by free music distribution
My conclusion:
1) Free music distribution should be legal

I see your point, Mr. B.

For those who have missed this, Mr. B is saying that the nature of music in a modern context makes it a product different than others -- that it has become so easy to produce and distribute that there no longer needs to be any meaningful profit-driven protections for it to be created. (And that there are still secondary profits to be gained by those who produce music of sufficient quality) This argument is not wholly without merit, I don't believe.

I happen to disagree with it, as I think it tends to understate the actual investment of time, effort, and commitment to the craft necessary to make music of the quality and quantity that we, the consumers of music, want. The ability to (possibly) sell recordings is an inducement for many talented people to get into and stay in the business -- talented people who need time to create their works, equipment upon which to play and record, and expertise with which to hone the recordings. All these, currenly, depend on a chain that is driven (whether you like it or not) by the market -- and the market is, in large part, a creation of intellectual property protections. Yes, the ultimate purpose of these laws is to spur the creation of these works (to thereby benefit society), and the profit center of that system does this, by most accounts, rather well.

Your argument that music is special and has somehow transcended the profit motive is specious, I think, as it ignores the real costs and trade-offs involved in the industry. Sure, there would be people who would still create and distribute music if there were no way to sell it. There's a guy who made the "We Like The Moon" video and song in his basement, and the commercial deal with QUizno's was a long way away from his mind, right?

But the point is that there would have to be a diminishing - probably a very substantial diminshing -- of the quantity and quality of the works that would then be created. Some of those creative people would just have to keep working at Kroger's, rather than write songs full time... the guy with a recording studio wouldn't get as many paying clients, since there just wouldn't be as much money at the end of the process for people who decide to do this stuff. It's a system of incentive -- even if the costs and difficulties are less than they once were, people would have to react. And I still think the strongest argument is that eliminating the ability to see recorded music is tantamount to gutting the industry of its most vital constituents.


It's not that I quarrel with your logic, I just dispute one of your premises.

[st.cronin]

Tell that to the Supreme Court. What do you think the idea of IP laws are then? To make sure people make money?

That is actually a philosophically reasonable point of view. How do you ensure the progress of the useful arts? Make sure those that are good at it get paid enough to keep doing it.

[st.cronin]

Okay, gang. This is not a completely empty argument. You can disagree, and not disparage. There is hope for us yet.



I see your point, Mr. B.

For those who have missed this, Mr. B is saying that the nature of music in a modern context makes it a product different than others -- that it has become so easy to produce and distribute that there no longer needs to be any meaningful profit-driven protections for it to be created. (And that there are still secondary profits to be gained by those who produce music of sufficient quality) This argument is not wholly without merit, I don't believe.

I happen to disagree with it, as I think it tends to understate the actual investment of time, effort, and commitment to the craft necessary to make music of the quality and quantity that we, the consumers of music, want. The ability to (possibly) sell recordings is an inducement for many talented people to get into and stay in the business -- talented people who need time to create their works, equipment upon which to play and record, and expertise with which to hone the recordings. All these, currenly, depend on a chain that is driven (whether you like it or not) by the market -- and the market is, in large part, a creation of intellectual property protections. Yes, the ultimate purpose of these laws is to spur the creation of these works (to thereby benefit society), and the profit center of that system does this, by most accounts, rather well.

Your argument that music is special and has somehow transcended the profit motive is specious, I think, as it ignores the real costs and trade-offs involved in the industry. Sure, there would be people who would still create and distribute music if there were no way to sell it. There's a guy who made the "We Like The Moon" video and song in his basement, and the commercial deal with QUizno's was a long way away from his mind, right?

But the point is that there would have to be a diminishing - probably a very substantial diminshing -- of the quantity and quality of the works that would then be created. Some of those creative people would just have to keep working at Kroger's, rather than write songs full time... the guy with a recording studio wouldn't get as many paying clients, since there just wouldn't be as much money at the end of the process for people who decide to do this stuff. It's a system of incentive -- even if the costs and difficulties are less than they once were, people would have to react. And I still think the strongest argument is that eliminating the ability to see recorded music is tantamount to gutting the industry of its most vital constituents.


It's not that I quarrel with your logic, I just dispute one of your premises.

Well said.

[Masked]

Tell that to the Supreme Court. What do you think the idea of IP laws are then? To make sure people make money?
"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"
Most scientific advances and useful arts are developed by people who dedicate their lives to their work. Protecting their rights gives them a way to support themselves while granting consumers access to their work.

[Maple Leafs]

MrBig, your entire argument (even if we accept all the premises) is based on the assumption that music is easy to create and produce, and other art forms like movies and novels are not. I just don't buy this. I don't buy that it's easy to write a good song, or perform one, and I don't buy that it's easy to create a high-quality recording of one.

Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive. I think you're wrong there, and I think it feels like way too much like a happy coincidence that the only art form you believe is easy enough to create that we're justified in taking it is also the one that just happens to already be easy to steal.

[QuikSand]

MrBig, your entire argument (even if we accept all the premises) is based on the assumption that music is easy to create and produce, and other art forms like movies and novels are not. I just don't buy this. I don't buy that it's easy to write a good song, or perform one, and I don't buy that it's easy to create a high-quality recording of one.

Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive. I think you're wrong there, and I think it feels like way too much like a happy coincidence that the only art form you believe is easy enough to create that we're justified in taking it is also the one that just happens to already be easy to steal.

Certainly more efficient than mine, and probably more effective.

[st.cronin]

Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive. I think you're wrong there...

Question

Is the class of paid musicians (writers, performers, producers) better at making music than the class of amateur musicians? I don't see how you can argue that it isn't - and if it isn't, then Mr. Big's argument fails.

[HomerJSimpson]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[clintl]

I agree with Mr. B that IP law exists to promote the advance of science and the arts. It does so by providing economic incentives for the creation of artistic works. Take away the economic incentives, you have sabotaged purpose of IP laws, haven't you? The argument you're making that it's now cheaper and easier to duplicate music, so it should be free is ridiculous. That has NOTHING to do with the creative process, nor does it have anything to do with why the creators should retain their rights to decide how and when to distribute their work.

[Subby]

When I grrow up I want to be like Maple Leafs.

[MrBigglesworth]

Okay, gang. This is not a completely empty argument. You can disagree, and not disparage. There is hope for us yet.



I see your point, Mr. B.

For those who have missed this, Mr. B is saying that the nature of music in a modern context makes it a product different than others -- that it has become so easy to produce and distribute that there no longer needs to be any meaningful profit-driven protections for it to be created. (And that there are still secondary profits to be gained by those who produce music of sufficient quality) This argument is not wholly without merit, I don't believe.

I happen to disagree with it, as I think it tends to understate the actual investment of time, effort, and commitment to the craft necessary to make music of the quality and quantity that we, the consumers of music, want. The ability to (possibly) sell recordings is an inducement for many talented people to get into and stay in the business -- talented people who need time to create their works, equipment upon which to play and record, and expertise with which to hone the recordings. All these, currenly, depend on a chain that is driven (whether you like it or not) by the market -- and the market is, in large part, a creation of intellectual property protections. Yes, the ultimate purpose of these laws is to spur the creation of these works (to thereby benefit society), and the profit center of that system does this, by most accounts, rather well.

Your argument that music is special and has somehow transcended the profit motive is specious, I think, as it ignores the real costs and trade-offs involved in the industry. Sure, there would be people who would still create and distribute music if there were no way to sell it. There's a guy who made the "We Like The Moon" video and song in his basement, and the commercial deal with QUizno's was a long way away from his mind, right?

But the point is that there would have to be a diminishing - probably a very substantial diminshing -- of the quantity and quality of the works that would then be created. Some of those creative people would just have to keep working at Kroger's, rather than write songs full time... the guy with a recording studio wouldn't get as many paying clients, since there just wouldn't be as much money at the end of the process for people who decide to do this stuff. It's a system of incentive -- even if the costs and difficulties are less than they once were, people would have to react. And I still think the strongest argument is that eliminating the ability to see recorded music is tantamount to gutting the industry of its most vital constituents.


It's not that I quarrel with your logic, I just dispute one of your premises.
Thanks for at least understanding what I am trying to say and not trying to argue something totally unrelated. We disagree though. Twenty years ago you had to buy a science journal to get the latest on new discoveries. Now you just have to go to any one of a million blogs where the scientists write about their work for free. And that is going to happen to music as the tech gets better. High tech recording studios will still be in business, because songs still need to be produced for the radio, for TV commercials, and songs for the P2P network to hype their concerts. Their business may go down, but like I said before, there is nothing saying that we have to protect any particular business. The buggie whip makers went out of business when the automobile came around.

[MrBigglesworth]

Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive.
Question

Is the class of paid musicians (writers, performers, producers) better at making music than the class of amateur musicians? I don't see how you can argue that it isn't - and if it isn't, then Mr. Big's argument fails.
My argument does not in any way depend on the quality of music recording being the same or better if P2P was free and legal. Consider making any musical recording available to anyone for free. That is a tremendous benefit to the consumer. If the quality stays the same, that's an obvious net plus for the consumer. But if the quality drops a little, it's still a net benefit for the consumer because of the huge benefit of having any recording ever for free. And the quality will not drop a lot, if at all. Concerts are still a $1 billion business, and being a rockstar still has a huge social incentive to it. The top acts will still be millionaires. So it's not like Britney Spears will suddenly decide to get a job as a waitress instead of being a musician.

I actually think that music choice will go up. The recording industry will not be manufacturing pop bands anymore, and it will be easier to get into the game without having to get in with the RIAA.

[clintl]

If you think that benefits to the consumer are the only thing that matters in a transaction, you don't know a thing about economics, Mr. B. The party supplying the good or service also needs to benefit, or it won't have any incentive to produce the good or service, and there will be no transaction. Your "business" model would drive the arts right into the toilet. It's hard enough for most people to make a living in the arts as it is, but without copyright protection and the right to control distribution, it would be impossible. If your business model was such a great things, why do we see people like Fred Eaglesmith and Steve Wynn, who have cult followings but no recording contract, releasing albums on their labels instead of just giving everything away for free? I'll tell you why - that model doesn't work. The CD sales at concerts are part of their income stream.

[MrBigglesworth]

If you think that benefits to the consumer are the only thing that matters in a transaction, you don't know a thing about economics, Mr. B.
I don't think you have delved deep enough into the argument, and I've never said or even hinted at the fact that I believe that the benefit to the consumer is the only thing that matters in an economic transaction.

[clintl]

Yes, but there's no obvious benefit to the artists that I can see from abandoning their copyright protections. I'm a writer, and belong to a writer's forum, and I'll tell you this - writers would never accept the kind of business model you're advocating for the music industry, and with good reason. There's no reason musicians, should, either. If they want to give music away as a marketing strategy, that's one thing. But never, ever, ever, should a third party who has not purchased the right to do so from the artist be legally permitted to set up an alternative distribution channel that the artist did not approve. Copyright is exactly what the name says it is - the right to make copies. No one but the copyright holder and people specifically authorized by the copyright holder have any right to make and distribute copies to anyone else. That's the law, that's what the authors of the Constitution intended, and that's how it should be. If you want free music, there are places on the internet where some artists have permitted concert recordings to be archived and downloaded. Download those, not the stuff they are selling and do not intend to be available free.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yes, but there's no obvious benefit to the artists that I can see from abandoning their copyright protections. I'm a writer, and belong to a writer's forum, and I'll tell you this - writers would never accept the kind of business model you're advocating for the music industry, and with good reason. There's no reason musicians, should, either.
For one thing, writers are not musicians. What I say about one group does not neccessarily translate to another, and one's business model does not have to equate the business model of the other. Secondly, I never said that there was any obvious benefit to the artists. But the laws are designed to have the maximum benefit to the consumer. As long as the best benefit to the consumer is gained by having musicians hold the copyright to their songs, then I am for that, but my point (which can be disagreed with, for example Quiksand) is that the consumer is now being hampered by the IP laws.

Copyright is exactly what the name says it is - the right to make copies. No one but the copyright holder and people specifically authorized by the copyright holder have any right to make and distribute copies to anyone else. That's the law, that's what the authors of the Constitution intended, and that's how it should be.
I realize what the law is, obviously I am talking about changing the law. If you feel that is how the authors of the Constitution felt, and that that is how it should be, then give an argument on how the consumer is benefitted by it. You haven't done that.

[clintl]

For one thing, writers are not musicians. What I say about one group does not neccessarily translate to another, and one's business model does not have to equate the business model of the other.

The business models are very similar, and translate very well between the two. Both are paid royalties based on sales. Both have opportunities to make additional income from personal appearance (concerts for musicians, speaking appearances and teaching workshops for writers). The main difference between the models is that, for musicians, the publishing channel (record companies) are a lot more abusive and corrupt with respect to the rights they insist on buying.

I realize what the law is, obviously I am talking about changing the law. If you feel that is how the authors of the Constitution felt, and that that is how it should be, then give an argument on how the consumer is benefitted by it. You haven't done that.

The consumer benefits by having a greater diversity and quality of music to choose from because musicians have the economic opportunity to actually make a living at their craft if they're good enough. That is EXACTLY the rationale the authors of the Constitution were using when they crafted the clause in the first place. I'm astonished that you so willfully refuse to acknowledge that directly, when you have on several occasions admitted it indirectly.

[MrBigglesworth]

The business models are very similar, and translate very well between the two. Both are paid royalties based on sales. Both have opportunities to make additional income from personal appearance (concerts for musicians, speaking appearances and teaching workshops for writers). The main difference between the models is that, for musicians, the publishing channel (record companies) are a lot more abusive and corrupt with respect to the rights they insist on buying.
Do the top writers make 7.5 more money through appearances than through sales of their content? In 2002, the top musicians did. The industries are not alike. What is good for one is not neccessarily good for another. If you want an example of how tech has changed writing, look at punditry: thousands of political writers have their work available free on the Internet now.

The consumer benefits by having a greater diversity and quality of music to choose from because musicians have the economic opportunity to actually make a living at their craft if they're good enough. That is EXACTLY the rationale the authors of the Constitution were using when they crafted the clause in the first place. I'm astonished that you so willfully refuse to acknowledge that directly, when you have on several occasions admitted it indirectly.
I've written several times that I believe that the diversity and quality would not drastically change, and may in fact increase, because:

1) There are still vast income streams available for musicians besides record sales (and there would still be record sales)
2) The social incentives of being a 'rock star' would still be in place
3) Lessening the RIAA's role removes a major roadblock to bands

Clearly, Britney Spears, the Rolling Stones, etc, would not be waiting on tables tomorrow if "The Bigglesworth Law" went into effect today. Certainly, musicians on the margins could be hurt, and may not be able to make a living off music anymore. That doesn't mean they will stop making music though. Like you say, writing is in some way similar, in the fact that many, many people write for hours on end for free. Similarly, there will still be people that play music for free, and get their music out there. The top bands will still be making tons of cash through concerts, endorsements, etc, so people will still be looking for the next big thing.

[st.cronin]

Like you say, writing is in some way similar, in the fact that many, many people write for hours on end for free.
I accept that I am not going to change your mind ... but don't you notice a massive difference in the quality of writing on the part of professionals and amateurs? Sure, there are exceptions, but for the most part nobody wants to read 99% of the joe bloggers out there.


Certainly, musicians on the margins could be hurt, and may not be able to make a living off music anymore. That doesn't mean they will stop making music though.

I think you know you're wrong there. I can hardly believe you said it with a straight face. Will music completely cease? No. But ... I mean, did you see 8 Mile? Would Eminem have pursued his art with the same zeal if it hadn't also been his ticket out of hell? Of course not, he would have become a stockbroker.

[MrBigglesworth]

I accept that I am not going to change your mind ... but don't you notice a massive difference in the quality of writing on the part of professionals and amateurs? Sure, there are exceptions, but for the most part nobody wants to read 99% of the joe bloggers out there.
My point was that professionals are now blogging. A great example is the authors of Freakonomics (http://www.freakonomics.com/blog.php). They write for free on their blog, and earn money from their book sales, as a musicians would earn money from concerts and endorsements. The best political writers also have blogs, such as Matthew Yglesias (http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/) and Hugh Hewitt (http://www.hughhewitt.com/).

I think you know you're wrong there. I can hardly believe you said it with a straight face. Will music completely cease? No. But ... I mean, did you see 8 Mile? Would Eminem have pursued his art with the same zeal if it hadn't also been his ticket out of hell? Of course not, he would have become a stockbroker.
So you think that Eminem would not have pursued his art if instead of becoming an insanely rich rap icon, the best he could look forward to was being a slightly less insanely rich rap icon? His clothing line alone earned him $1.5 million last year. That's hardly a good example to use when talking about how the lack of CD sales will bankrupt musicians.

[wade moore]

READ THE THREAD!


Not "to promote the profits of scientists and artists", but "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".
Umm.. so.. where in that line does it say "music should not be protected but other forms of art should be because that is what is good for art"?

YOU are making a HUGE jump in logic here... YOU are making MAJOR assumptions that "free music" "promotes progress of science and the useful arts". YOU are saying that what is "good" for "art" is "good" for the "consumer". This line from the consititution states NONE of this.

You have argued that it is not possible to argue that free music is not "good" for the consumer. Well duh, you could say anything made free is "good for the consumer" and say there's no argueing it. I have yet to see an argument that says that free music is good for the ARTS.

And you dismissed several of my arguments above WAY to easy. You in your ivory tower have WAY overestimated the accessability to computers and the internet.

You make a HUGE jump in logic about what forms of art people will be willing to make for no money. There is this assumption and jump in your head that writing a novel is insane to do for no money but people will make music? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I would argue that writing is more likely to happen for free than music is. You say "it doesn't take any time to write a song". How many good songs have you written? How do you know? What about the time to perfect it? What about the time for your band mates to perfect it?

Your arguments are just absolute CRAP meant to justify your illegal activities.

[wade moore]

So... you guys can ignore my rant because Maple Leafs and QS said it much better and with much less emotion...

I just think Mr. B is making some major jumps in logic and oversimplifying what creators of music will do when there is no chance to make money from sales of music. The way big concerts happen is on the heals of major sales in records for instance.

[Celeval]

MrB -

I do see your point as it applies to large-scale acts. But let's back up a bit and talk about the up-and-comers; and by this I don't mean the new guys who are making it on the radio. I'm talking about the bands that are playing on Friday/Saturday nights at Eddie's Attic, Jammin' Java, or any of the other thousands of coffee houses/smallish music areas in the world.

These groups tour, charge some money for their concerts, and sell CDs. Some of these groups are very, very good; and some of them will break out into the rock-star motif and make that kind of money. But if their music is free for distribution, that takes away what at this point is the only reliable moneymaker for these groups. Sure, Jennifer Nettles makes a good chunk of money from concerts while touring now with Sugarland. But without the CD sales, could she have kept (or started!) touring with Soul Miner's Daughter and the Jennifer Nettles Band? There's a large number of groups that have the potential - The Alternate Routes is one I like, Judd and Maggie one my wife does - but neither have that critical mass. Neither at this point could survive as a band without the income from CD sales.

So while the point may apply for the top-level acts, it becomes a serious barrier to entry for the low- to mid- level acts. Producing and creating music, despite any advances in technology is not free. Touring is not necessarily a money-maker.

[wade moore]

Celeval made my argument much better than I did.

[MrBigglesworth]

MrB -

I do see your point as it applies to large-scale acts. But let's back up a bit and talk about the up-and-comers; and by this I don't mean the new guys who are making it on the radio. I'm talking about the bands that are playing on Friday/Saturday nights at Eddie's Attic, Jammin' Java, or any of the other thousands of coffee houses/smallish music areas in the world.

These groups tour, charge some money for their concerts, and sell CDs. Some of these groups are very, very good; and some of them will break out into the rock-star motif and make that kind of money. But if their music is free for distribution, that takes away what at this point is the only reliable moneymaker for these groups. Sure, Jennifer Nettles makes a good chunk of money from concerts while touring now with Sugarland. But without the CD sales, could she have kept (or started!) touring with Soul Miner's Daughter and the Jennifer Nettles Band? There's a large number of groups that have the potential - The Alternate Routes is one I like, Judd and Maggie one my wife does - but neither have that critical mass. Neither at this point could survive as a band without the income from CD sales.

So while the point may apply for the top-level acts, it becomes a serious barrier to entry for the low- to mid- level acts. Producing and creating music, despite any advances in technology is not free. Touring is not necessarily a money-maker.
Like I said, some on the margins may be hurt. However, if "The Bigglesworth Law" passes, it wouldn't entirely get rid of CD sales. There may not even be that much of a change. Virtually everyone I know with a computer downloads songs right now, and almost all of them are still happy to purchase CD's of their favorite artists. Especially if CD's costs go down, with the reduced role of the RIAA.

No doubt about it, some may not be able to get by. But that will happen more often than not to the 'worst' of those musicians. And the loss of those musicians will be more than outweighed by the good of the free available music. It would also be offset by the increase in 'garage bands', bands that don't tour but will put out a good song or two, that will be able to get their song 'out there' easier because of the increase in technology due to the free, legal file trading.

[Subby]

The Bigglesworth Law kicks serious ass for affluent consumers.

Other folks...not so much.

[MrBigglesworth]

Umm.. so.. where in that line does it say "music should not be protected but other forms of art should be because that is what is good for art"?

YOU are making a HUGE jump in logic here... YOU are making MAJOR assumptions that "free music" "promotes progress of science and the useful arts". YOU are saying that what is "good" for "art" is "good" for the "consumer". This line from the consititution states NONE of this.
Dude, I spend like 50 posts in this post alone putting forth my arguments. I didn't make any 'assumptions' like what you are stating. If you want to disagree, fine, but don't just ignore that I ever typed anything.

You have argued that it is not possible to argue that free music is not "good" for the consumer. Well duh, you could say anything made free is "good for the consumer" and say there's no argueing it. I have yet to see an argument that says that free music is good for the ARTS.
Have you read the thread? Because I talked at least twice about how the arts could be benefitted by it, but that there would probably be a drop, but not a large enough drop to counter the increase in benefit to the consumer.

And you dismissed several of my arguments above WAY to easy. You in your ivory tower have WAY overestimated the accessability to computers and the internet.
So who that has access to recording equipment and the money to tour does not have access to a computer? It's a very small minority. The points were dismissed easily because they were entered into the discussion way too easily.

You make a HUGE jump in logic about what forms of art people will be willing to make for no money.
Have you read the thread? I've mentioned how much money there is still in music even if you took record sales completely out of it.

There is this assumption and jump in your head that writing a novel is insane to do for no money but people will make music? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.
Novel writers get 99% (about, I made that number up) of their money from selling their novels, while musicians do not.

I would argue that writing is more likely to happen for free than music is.
I'll take you up on that bet. You really think there are more amatuer novel writers out there than amatuer musicians??

Your arguments are just absolute CRAP meant to justify your illegal activities.
wade moore, I try to respond to everyone that disagrees with me, but everything you have written has been brought up and answered multiple times and you add nothing to it, and it gets old after a while.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Bigglesworth Law kicks serious ass for affluent consumers.

Other folks...not so much.
Because of not having computers? Computers are getting cheaper and cheaper. Broadband as well will get cheaper and cheaper. It won't be long before every household that has a TV also has a computer. If they still can't afford a computer, they aren't the type of household that is spending hundreds of dollars on CD's anyway.

[Maple Leafs]

... bands that don't tour but will put out a good song or two, that will be able to get their song 'out there' easier because of the increase in technology due to the free, legal file trading.I've seen this argued before. Isn't it possible that it's the opposite? That everyone will be so busy downloading the free music from the big names that the indy guy won't be able to use p2p to get a foot in the door?

[clintl]

I've written several times that I believe that the diversity and quality would not drastically change, and may in fact increase, because:

1) There are still vast income streams available for musicians besides record sales (and there would still be record sales)
2) The social incentives of being a 'rock star' would still be in place
3) Lessening the RIAA's role removes a major roadblock to bands



And you're dead wrong. And you want to know why you're wrong? Because there would be nobody left to invest money on development and promotion of the bands. Bands, when they're starting out, don't have the money to do that themselves, unless one of the members comes from a wealthy family. Your model might be OK for bands that are already big, but few new bands would ever have the opportunity to get big again. The p2p network on the Internet would just be a huge, completely disorganized collection of stuff of most people didn't even know existed. And if they did know it existed, the content would be so unreliably variable in quality that sorting through it wouldn't be worth the effort. It wouldn't be worth the hassle to radio stations, either, and there's a very good chance that the one income-producing channel that served as a promotional opportunity for bands would find other things to program instead.

By the way, I've rethought your contention that the Founding Fathers granted IP rights primarily to benefit consumers, and I don't agree with that anymore, either. I believe they granted IP rights to give incentives for the technological and cultural growth of the nation as a whole.

I'll tell you something that I know for sure. If your model was such a great economic model for artists, some cult artist putting out music on his or her own label would already be giving away their entire catalog for free on their website. I don't see anyone doing it. I see some of them giving away unreleased freebies, or putting a song or two for free download on their websites, or letting people post bootlegs of their concerts on places like Live Music Archive. But that's it.

[st.cronin]

I'll tell you something that I know for sure. If your model was such a great economic model for artists, some cult artist putting out music on his or her own label would already be giving away their entire catalog for free on their website. I don't see anyone doing it. I see some of them giving away unreleased freebies, or putting a song or two for free download on their websites, or letting people post bootlegs of their concerts on places like Live Music Archive. But that's it.

game, set, match

[Celeval]

It would also be offset by the increase in 'garage bands', bands that don't tour but will put out a good song or two, that will be able to get their song 'out there' easier because of the increase in technology due to the free, legal file trading.
I disagree. Free music isn't illegal now - what's to stop the garage bands from putting out music for free now to get out there? There isn't anything - so I don't see where this increase comes from.

[MrBigglesworth]

And you're dead wrong. And you want to know why you're wrong? Because there would be nobody left to invest money on development and promotion of the bands. Bands, when they're starting out, don't have the money to do that themselves, unless one of the members comes from a wealthy family. Your model might be OK for bands that are already big, but few new bands would ever have the opportunity to get big again. The p2p network on the Internet would just be a huge, completely disorganized collection of stuff of most people didn't even know existed. And if they did know it existed, the content would be so unreliably variable in quality that sorting through it wouldn't be worth the effort. It wouldn't be worth the hassle to radio stations, either, and there's a very good chance that the one income-producing channel that served as a promotional opportunity for bands would find other things to program instead.
Music would still be a multi-billion dollar business. Taking away most of the record sales would not eliminate all money from the industry. There will always be money for promotions. Technology has made promoting that much easier. You think radio stations and MTV will shut down if they don't have somebody tell them what to play? Most radio stations would love to play their own lists. You think p2p technology won't progress to where it will be easy to search? Ares for one already rates the files on its system, in terms of popularity and also sound quality.

I'll tell you something that I know for sure. If your model was such a great economic model for artists, some cult artist putting out music on his or her own label would already be giving away their entire catalog for free on their website.
It's like I haven't even been posting for people like you and st.cronin. How many times do I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT THE BEST ECONOMIC MODEL FOR ARTISTS. I have no desire whatsoever to look for the way to get artists the most money possible, same as I am against the restrictions of the free market put on prescription drugs in this country.

[MrBigglesworth]

I disagree. Free music isn't illegal now - what's to stop the garage bands from putting out music for free now to get out there? There isn't anything - so I don't see where this increase comes from.
Are there more small time band songs on p2p networks now than there was 10 years ago? More than 5 years ago? The trend is upwards. As techonology gets better, there will be more and more.

[Celeval]

Are there more small time band songs on p2p networks now than there was 10 years ago? More than 5 years ago? The trend is upwards. As techonology gets better, there will be more and more.
Well, yeah, given that there are more p2p networks and more songs then there were 5 or 10 years ago. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, yeah, given that there are more p2p networks and more songs then there were 5 or 10 years ago. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Fantastic, then we are in agreement that better technology means more songs!

[sterlingice]

Fantastic, then we are in agreement that better technology means more songs!
The more songs are not the result of the distribution technology, but other technology in making songs. It's a non-sequitor to say there are more *quality* songs because of P2P, tho ("because I had cereal this morning, Kansas will beat Texas Tech").

SI

[clintl]

Here's the bottom line - people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit. The consumer has no right at all, and should have not any right at all, to free stuff that interferes with the creators' rights to decide how those works are distributed. And the fact that technology makes copyright infringement easier does not change the fact that it is still copyright infringement.

I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, and I hate the big record companies. If they were book publishers, everyone in the professional writing business would consider them scammers who should be shamed out of business.

But the fact remains that essentially what you are arguing is a certain narrow class of people should not have the right to benefit financially from their creative works. And when you get called on it, you'll say it's a better system for the creators in one post, and when someone criticizes you for that, you'll admit that in a backhanded indirect way that it's not better and you don't actually give a shit about the artists. You're about your own selfish desire to not have to pay for what you want.

Well, guess what - we all like to get free stuff. But we're not entitled to free stuff, and we're especially not entitled to free stuff belonging to someone else who doesn't want to give it away for free.

[MrBigglesworth]

The more songs are not the result of the distribution technology, but other technology in making songs. It's a non-sequitor to say there are more *quality* songs because of P2P, tho ("because I had cereal this morning, Kansas will beat Texas Tech").

SI
Celeval's point though was that 'garage bands' would be putting their stuff online now if we were to assume that they would do it later, and my point was that they are.

[DaddyTorgo]

98% of music these days is shit anyways. And what isn't shit i have no problem paying for. I think the last CD I bought was Green Day, and the last before that was the latest Counting Crows disc. Bottom line...I'm not buying a lot of CD's these days, because 98-99% of stuff isn't even worth LISTENING to, let alone paying for. so i don't even download anything anymore, cuz there's nothing i'm interested in that i don't already have.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here's the bottom line - people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit. The consumer has no right at all, and should have not any right at all, to free stuff that interferes with the creators' rights to decide how those works are distributed...Well, guess what - we all like to get free stuff. But we're not entitled to free stuff, and we're especially not entitled to free stuff belonging to someone else who doesn't want to give it away for free.
Please, get off your high horse. You already get the works of people for free. Ever read a report by a psychologist who did a six month study that said, say, that reading to your kids makes them smarter? Do you then pay royalties to the scientist every time you read to your kids? Ever get a classical music CD? Know why they are so cheap? Because they don't have to pay royalties. Ever get a generic drug? Or aspirin? The patents ran out, so you are benefitting from someone else's work for free. And why are patents limited by time? Because it is designed to give an incentive to innovate, not to maximize the companies profits.

But the fact remains that essentially what you are arguing is a certain narrow class of people should not have the right to benefit financially from their creative works. And when you get called on it, you'll say it's a better system for the creators in one post, and when someone criticizes you for that, you'll admit that in a backhanded indirect way that it's not better and you don't actually give a shit about the artists. You're about your own selfish desire to not have to pay for what you want.
That paragraph is mostly BS, except for saying that I am selfish, which I am. But let's take those statements one at a time:
But the fact remains that essentially what you are arguing is a certain narrow class of people should not have the right to benefit financially from their creative works.
Incorrect. Musicians would be able to benefit through live shows, endorsements, spinoffs (Eminem's clothesline, for example), the record sales that they would still have, etc.

And when you get called on it, you'll say it's a better system for the creators in one post...
Hmmm...where did I say that? I think I said multiple times that I don't care about the pocket books of musicians anymore than I care about the pocketbooks of Exxon.

...and when someone criticizes you for that, you'll admit that in a backhanded indirect way that it's not better and you don't actually give a shit about the artists.
I'm not sure what you think backhanded means, but I actually admitted it several times quite freely and haven't hid for a second from that fact that the repeal of IP rights for song filetrading would have a negative effect on the pocketbooks of musicians.

[clintl]

Please, get off your high horse. You already get the works of people for free. Ever read a report by a psychologist who did a six month study that said, say, that reading to your kids makes them smarter? Do you then pay royalties to the scientist every time you read to your kids?

First, don't compare academic research to commercial arts. The conventions for disseminating information and the methods of compensation are completely different models. Second, what does the act of reading have to do with the actual copyright protections on a report someone wrote? Absolutely nothing.
Ever get a classical music CD? Know why they are so cheap? Because they don't have to pay royalties.

Not really. It's mostly because classical music doesn't sell as well, so the record companies can't charge the same price for it. If they could, rest assured the record companies would. And, in fact, the artists DO get royalties for the performance, which is protected under copyright. It's just the compositions themselves that have expired copyrights, which just means the composers don't get royalties.

Ever get a generic drug? Or aspirin? The patents ran out, so you are benefitting from someone else's work for free. And why are patents limited by time? Because it is designed to give an incentive to innovate, not to maximize the companies profits.

Where are you getting free aspirin? I sure don't know any place around here to get it.

Yes, the patents have expired. But until the patents expired, those companies had the exclusive right to make and/or license the drugs. And they can still profit from making them after the patents expire.

The copyrights you have so lustfully wish to infringe have not expired. So we're not talking about aspirin.

Incorrect. Musicians would be able to benefit through live shows, endorsements, spinoffs (Eminem's clothesline, for example), the record sales that they would still have, etc.

So it's OK to take away a source of income from people (for the vast majority) who don't make much money at it, anyway, as long as you leave them other ways to make money that already exist. How's a 25% or a 50% pay cut sound to you for doing the same work?

Hmmm...where did I say that? I think I said multiple times that I don't care about the pocket books of musicians anymore than I care about the pocketbooks of Exxon.

What's your occupation? What if a law was passed that took away your right to be paid for your work? That's what you're advocating.

I'm not sure what you think backhanded means, but I actually admitted it several times quite freely and haven't hid for a second from that fact that the repeal of IP rights for song filetrading would have a negative effect on the pocketbooks of musicians.

Good. I'm glad you're admitting it openly, so that we can recognize you as an enemy of creative artists everywhere.

[Maple Leafs]

Incorrect. Musicians would be able to benefit through live shows, endorsements, spinoffs (Eminem's clothesline, for example), the record sales that they would still have, etc.Eminem wouldn't have a clothing line if he wasn't a big star. He wouldn't be a big star without the music industry marketing machine behind him, and they're only behind him because he makes them a ton of money through his record sales. Take that away, and he doesn't get promoted -- and suddenly those concerts he's supposed to rely on for his income get an awful lot smaller.

[Celeval]

Celeval's point though was that 'garage bands' would be putting their stuff online now if we were to assume that they would do it later, and my point was that they are.
And they still depend on the CD income to make it big. So, uh, I don't see how free music will change that in the slightest.

[MrBigglesworth]

First, don't compare academic research to commercial arts. The conventions for disseminating information and the methods of compensation are completely different models. Second, what does the act of reading have to do with the actual copyright protections on a report someone wrote? Absolutely nothing.
I'm arguing that the systems are different but should be the same. Your counter-argument is that the systems are different. Yes, I know the systems are different, but there isn't a basic principle that makes them different. What makes them different is the different incentives that the government decided on to create innovation. Academic research can thrive without pantenting their findings, and I believe that music has reached that point as well.

Not really. It's mostly because classical music doesn't sell as well, so the record companies can't charge the same price for it. If they could, rest assured the record companies would. And, in fact, the artists DO get royalties for the performance, which is protected under copyright. It's just the compositions themselves that have expired copyrights, which just means the composers don't get royalties.
No. It's because nobody holds a patent on the music. If someone charges $20 for a classical music CD, someone else will just record the same CD with the same music and sell it for $15. Then someone else will do the same for $10. That's a fact. It's not because classical is not popular.

Where are you getting free aspirin? I sure don't know any place around here to get it.

Yes, the patents have expired. But until the patents expired, those companies had the exclusive right to make and/or license the drugs. And they can still profit from making them after the patents expire.
Free aspirin? I didn't say anything about free aspirin, and I don't even know why I am bothering to explain this to you, but obviously aspirin and other generic drugs are cheap because there is no monopoly on the sales. The money for the drugs does not go to the creator, as such the creator has NO CONTROL over who produces those drugs. And by your own words, "people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit", so if you purchase generic drugs you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. What I am illustrating is that the absolute point that you are trying to make is bogus. There are no laws that say that creators have the absolute right of control over their works, they only have control for a certain number of years, and that is because the laws are designed as an incentive to innovate, not as a means for people to profit.

So it's OK to take away a source of income from people (for the vast majority) who don't make much money at it, anyway, as long as you leave them other ways to make money that already exist. How's a 25% or a 50% pay cut sound to you for doing the same work?

What's your occupation? What if a law was passed that took away your right to be paid for your work? That's what you're advocating.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this happens all the time in this country. A law was passed creating the National Weather Service, which gives away the same information as weather.com, only for free. Environmental laws are passed to protect owls and loggers are out of work. When universal healthcare finally passes, all the HMO's are out of work. If a streamlined tax code is passed, CPA's are out of work. And that is all done for the greater good. I could go on and on. I may not like it if it were my job that was cut, but if it is for the greater good you have to do what you have to do.

Good. I'm glad you're admitting it openly, so that we can recognize you as an enemy of creative artists everywhere.
:rolleyes:

[MrBigglesworth]

Eminem wouldn't have a clothing line if he wasn't a big star. He wouldn't be a big star without the music industry marketing machine behind him, and they're only behind him because he makes them a ton of money through his record sales. Take that away, and he doesn't get promoted -- and suddenly those concerts he's supposed to rely on for his income get an awful lot smaller.
Eminem also made over $5 million in live performances this year. But, if your point is that Eminem doesn't earn his money because of talent but rather because of a huge marketing machine, then isn't that even more of a reason to get rid of the huge marketing machines, so that talent is what earns you the money?

[MrBigglesworth]

And they still depend on the CD income to make it big. So, uh, I don't see how free music will change that in the slightest.
Do you have evidence that that would be the case? Rockonomics (http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/499.pdf), a paper by Alan Krueger, the Princeton labor economist, goes into some detail of this. He summarizes several studies on the effect of file-sharing starting on around page 60. Among his points:


Smaller labels and unknown artists benefit, while big labels and stars suffer
The overall effect of social welfare is positive
An artist's revenues are better under file sharing, while publisher revenues shrink
An alternative could be blanket licenses similar to what radios get


Another interesting note from the paper, of the top 35 highest earning musicians in 2002, the average made $12.7 million in live performances and $1.7 million in record sales.