The RIAA goes too far?

[Semjaza]

I've said that in the past anyway. I also have to word things so people other than those who keep up on it know what I am referring to. I don't remember saying you wouldn't know what the group was.

You're harping on one small aspect of my entire argument. Just because they aren't as big of a problem to these RIAA people doesn't mean they aren't someone they should deal with more than they are. I didn't say most MP3s are from these groups. I said a good deal are. I'd have to say that the RIAA should be more concerned over stuff being released all over the place that isn't even out yet than they should some random idiot sharing a low quality MP3 taped off the radio. Most of these (NOT MP3s in general) do originate from those groups, which was my whole point.

Me saying they should go after these people more totally negates the idea that they need to go after Kazaa people too? Where did I say this?

It's like not going after the people who actually tape bootleg videos and just concentrating on those that buy them. You're attacking all the legs of the beast and not the head. They might as well go after all of it at once.

This was not the main point of any of my argument as it is. One small part that is being taken differently than I even meant it. In addition to this, there has been like four topics on this already. I don't want to post my entire thought process on it over and over again. I already said stuff about the RIAA's scare tactics in the past.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]I can't agree with this. If I buy a CD and let my friend borrow it and listen to it, there is no chance in hell that I should go down for a lawsuit. Yes people are taking advantage of the system. But the fact is, they aren't COPYING anything, they are sharing their music with other people. No exchange of money, and frankly I have little sympathy over RIAA. We aren't stealing anything, I think it's just sharing :D. The only issue is that people have taken granted of what they have. That sounds familiar, people taking advantage of some industry... wait... that sounds like the industry itself when it claimed as CD's FIRST came out "The CD will be easier to use, easier to play, and much cheaper." Which SHOULD be true. Nope, CD's came out initially costing well over the price of casettes. Record companies haven't even bothered thinking of the consumer, merely the fattening wallets and the wallets of their stars. No sympathy here.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#404040]Buying a CD and letting one friend borrow it is vastly different to what I'm talking about, though.

If you don't own any of the music that you're downloading (and you download 1,000 tracks or whatever), you are [i]clearly[/i] stealing music. You now own it...but did you pay for it? No.

I'm not opposed to a friend lending you a CD or something. But in my view that argument is mere nitpicking. [i]Obviously[/i] very few people would be opposed to something relatively harmless like that.

But when you start to steal very large quantities of music...and when you don't pay for any of that, we're then talking about music artists not earning their rightful income from those songs.

In terms of the RIAA...I can only repeat what I've already said, ad nauseum. I am [b]not[/b] trying to support the position of the RIAA as a victim in all of this. I believe that organizations like the RIAA (and their equivalents around the world) have largely dug their own grave here. In Australia, CD prices are higher than most other nations in the world -- these companies are simply asking for piracy to spread. And I do agree with Tony's idea that bands should take sales into their own hands...that would be a good idea if done on a larger scale.

So, I'm completely on-side with most people here. I don't see the RIAA as a victim. But I also don't see the MP3 downloader as a victim. If you download a few thousand songs and you don't pay for them...I have [i]no[/i] sympathy for you if you get sued. You deserve it.

But if you download a few songs to sample them...then you go and buy the CD, or you buy merchandise, or you visit concerts...I'm not going to complain. If you are prepared to reward an artist for his or her work, that's how it should be. As I said, I'm sick and tired of these mass-downloaders behaving as victims. They really need to grow up and start paying for the music that they love.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

I just read that one of the major P2P sharing program companies has agreed to pay the $2,000 fine of the 12 year old girl.

I also read that the RIAA will not sue if "you admit to file sharing and promise to never do it again"... I dunno if thats true... it also includes the act of deleting all music files downloaded.... Seems ridiculous if you ask me if this is the case... it's not discuraging me from doing it... also, if you want, I posted a thing about movie sharing in myOtaku. I'd rather not make a topic on it or talk much about it in this thread, so if you want to read it, check it out, comment there if you so deem worthy.

[Manic Webb]

People talk about the weather all the time, but nobody ever does anything about it...

When I download mp3s, it's usually because I only want 1 or 2 songs from an album, rather than the whole boring thing. I usually accumulate several songs from different albums, and make one mixed CD of different artists.

So here's my idea. Given, I never said this would be easy...

How about setting up record stores so that you can mix your own CDs? You walk in the store, listen to samples of songs (you can already do that), purchase a blank CD for like $0.25, and burn the songs you want onto that CD with the store's CD burners. Meanwhile, you're paying somewhere around $0.50-$1.00 per song.

This way, the RIAA gets its money, and you don't have to worry about buying an entire piece-of-crap CD for only 3 good songs.

Now, how does that grab you?

[Osmosis]

What would be REALLY nasty is if they actually verified your deleting all mp3 files as part of their "amnesty" program which really isn't. That would mean they'd have some way of digging through your computer, going through each and every folder and file on [I]on your personal computer.[/I]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#404040]Buying a CD and letting one friend borrow it is vastly different to what I'm talking about, though.

If you don't own any of the music that you're downloading (and you download 1,000 tracks or whatever), you are [i]clearly[/i] like that.
stealing music. You now own it...but did you pay for it? No.

I'm not opposed to a friend lending you a CD or something. But in my view that argument is mere nitpicking. [i]Obviously[/i] very few people would be opposed to something relatively harmless
But when you start to steal very large quantities of music...and when you don't pay for any of that, we're then talking about music artists not earning their rightful income from those songs.

In terms of the RIAA...I can only repeat what I've already said, ad nauseum. I am [b]not[/b] trying to support the position of the RIAA as a victim in all of this. I believe that organizations like the RIAA (and their equivalents around the world) have largely dug their own grave here. In Australia, CD prices are higher than most other nations in the world -- these companies are simply asking for piracy to spread. And I do agree with Tony's idea that bands should take sales into their own hands...that would be a good idea if done on a larger scale.

So, I'm completely on-side with most people here. I don't see the RIAA as a victim. But I also don't see the MP3 downloader as a victim. If you download a few thousand songs and you don't pay for them...I have [i]no[/i] sympathy for you if you get sued. You deserve it.

But if you download a few songs to sample them...then you go and buy the CD, or you buy merchandise, or you visit concerts...I'm not going to complain. If you are prepared to reward an artist for his or her work, that's how it should be. As I said, I'm sick and tired of these mass-downloaders behaving as victims. They really need to grow up and start paying for the music that they love.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm going to pull a Bill Clinton on you, with all the "definition crap", you'll see. (you know, good ol' clinton with "Define the word Is")

STEAL
10 entries found for steal.
steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.

OWN
\Own\, a. [OE. owen, awen, auen, aughen, AS. [=a]gen, p. p. of [=a]gan to possess; akin to OS. [=e]gan, G. & D. eigen, Icel. eiginn, Sw. & Dan. egen. [root]110. See Owe.] Belonging to; belonging exclusively or especially to; peculiar; -- most frequently following a possessive pronoun, as my, our, thy, your, his, her, its, their, in order to emphasize or intensify the idea of property, peculiar interest, or exclusive ownership; as, my own father; my own composition; my own idea; at my own price. ``No man was his own [i. e., no man was master of himself, or in possession of his senses].'' --Shak.

To hold one's own, to keep or maintain one's possessions; to yield nothing; esp., to suffer no loss or disadvantage in a contest. --Shak.

------------------------

Alright, here's the problem I have with you talking about ownership. You have to realise that claiming ownership is fairly vauge. You could claim, "hey, the artist owns his songs." Sorry, as soon as I buy the CD, they are MY songs, when referring to the particular song. I don't care what RIAA says, they can't waltz into my house and take anything I own. That's fine.

Don't worry I'm getting to a point. You see, I claim to own something as much as if I were to borrow it. That may sound confusing, but I'll give you an example. I've recently bought a new Frank Sinatra CD. I recently lent said CD to a buddy of mine a few days ago. Right now he, by the literal definition, "owns" the CD. But I own the CD right?

Let's say I went onto Kazaa, and uploaded some Sinatra onto it, so I can share some of his music with other people. Do they now "own" the music as much as my friend did? "Well they don't have to give the music BACK! They are STEALING from you and the artists!", Whoa hold the phone. Let's say I lend my CD to a good buddy and decide he can KEEP IT. Am I now breaking some LAW? Sorry, I bought it, no I am not. Am I well aware that possibly some 12 year old kid is downloading music that I purchased and listening to it? Yup, and if I wanted, I could prevent said 12-year old kid from downloading it.

Granted, I don't have to give any of the music I downloaded back, neither does anyone who uses programs like Kazaa. Why aren't people trying to improve and find better ways to share music with eachother? Good question. But after hearing RIAA would stoop so low as to lawsuit a 12-year old, they lost all credibility in my opinion. If i have a CD and lend it out to a thousand people in my lifetime, that is no different than sharing it online with those thousands. Suddenly the RIAA thinks they can control what people do with their purchases as soon as technology increases the speed and application of sharing things like music.

I suppose that's all I've got for tonight. Any thoughts?

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]Alright, here's the problem I have with you talking about ownership. You have to realise that claiming ownership is fairly vauge. You could claim, "hey, the artist owns his songs." Sorry, as soon as I buy the CD, they are MY songs, when referring to the particular song. I don't care what RIAA says, they can't waltz into my house and take anything I own. That's fine.

Don't worry I'm getting to a point. You see, I claim to own something as much as if I were to borrow it. That may sound confusing, but I'll give you an example. I've recently bought a new Frank Sinatra CD. I recently lent said CD to a buddy of mine a few days ago. Right now he, by the literal definition, "owns" the CD. But I own the CD right?

Let's say I went onto Kazaa, and uploaded some Sinatra onto it, so I can share some of his music with other people. Do they now "own" the music as much as my friend did? "Well they don't have to give the music BACK! They are STEALING from you and the artists!", Whoa hold the phone. Let's say I lend my CD to a good buddy and decide he can KEEP IT. Am I now breaking some LAW? Sorry, I bought it, no I am not. Am I well aware that possibly some 12 year old kid is downloading music that I purchased and listening to it? Yup, and if I wanted, I could prevent said 12-year old kid from
[/B][/QUOTE]

This is exactly why Kazaa can not be shut down legally. They are simply a "trading ground" for all sorts of giles, not just mp3s. They cannot control what people do with thier files. It's up to the people. Which is why i can see the RIAA doing what they are doing.

You know whats funny, and you just helped me to realize this, The whole definition of ownership is the bottom line to this debate. The RIAA says your stealing from THEM. Cause apparently THEY own the songs. But alas, they did not create the songs, thus do they own them? I think not. I believe if someone coutersued the RIAA, they could legally win on this basis. The RIAA does not OWN these songs. They did not create them. The artists did, therefor the artists are the only TRUE owners of the songs, therefor the RIAA cannot legally sue over stealing what is not theirs to begin with. Same with the MPAA. They are just an association associated with movies... they do not create movies, therefor they do not own movies, therefor they cannot sue for stealing what is not theirs.... It's like me filing suit on someone who stole my neighbours car. Hey you can't steal that car which is not mine, I'm sueing. Please... What a judge needs to do in this case is legally define the word "ownership" or "own" in this specific matter. Cause as has been pointed out, there's a bit of confusion within the word and what it actually means.

a) Do I own the music because I boughtthe CD, therefor it is mine to do with as my bidding?
b) Do the artists own the song? They created it, therefor it is theirs.
c) Does the RIAA own the song? Whatever the hell the RIAA does...
d) Does the kid across the country own it? He downloaded it to his computer, therefor it is his and no one else has it but him.
e) Doe smy neighbour own it? I gave him the CD, therefor the music contained is now his.

So many different senarios, so many meanings, yet... still no answer.

[Semjaza]

I don't even understand the point of this argument. Do people know what copyrights are? Do people know the contracts these bands get into that obviously involve the RIAA on some form?

Claiming that you own the songs because you bought them is bull****. Yes, you own the CD... fine enough. So if you buy a book, you own it? You can post it wherever the hell you feel like just because you bought that single copy? Apply this to video games, movies, TV shows and anything else with a copyright on them.

I understand the argument that the RIAA technically doesn't own the songs themselves. I actually agree with it, and it's most likely the reason why they haven't done their own version of Kazaa and just forgotten about all this crap.

However, the idea of throwing around the definition of "ownership" like that is really ridiculous. You're pulling at straws to justify something that obviously is not legal. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, but that doesn't change its definition or what it is. This is just semantics.

And really, I don't how how anyone can compare sharing songs with millions of people to lending a friend a CD.

As for the twelve year old, I really think that is most likely blown out of proportion. First of all, they'd most likely get the kid's IP address. I doubt they'd just mail her through the program, as it's probably expected that the email wouldn't be legit as it is. She's 12, she wouldn't have a checking account or credit card to pay the ISP most likely. Her parents would, and thus they are the results that the RIAA would get by searching out this IP and talking to the ISP about it. She just happens to be the one that downloaded the songs, so she's the one mentioned in the news article. I severely doubt it was directly targeted at her as much as it was targeted at the people who pay for the damn connection in general.

I download MP3s. Not on a regular basis. When I do, they're imports or bootlegged concerts of bands that don't fall under the RIAA nonsense as it is. Stuff I can't get in general. This isn't me justifying what I do over what anyone else does. It's just me saying that I do this same stuff. I honestly have no real problem with people downloading MP3s in general (despite how it may seem)... as long as they realize what they are getting into. How can they not? Especially with all the disclaimers on these programs and the news right now.

Yet people still do it. And when they get caught, they're the victim because the RIAA is evil. EVIL!!! That's what I have a problem with. The fact that despite all this, people still are surprised that they can get in trouble. The fact that people think they'reRobin Hood by stealing from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". The fact that people think they can justify it because you're going against the system in some form.

Give me a break. You're not the victim. If anyone, the artists are the main victims at the hands of the RIAA in the first place. You're just kicking them while they're down. Good job. People aren't even giving them the small bit of scraps they can manage to scrounge up from these terrible contracts... because let's face it, we all know no one on this planet is going to buy merchandise and tickets to see every single band whose songs they've downloaded.

Reforming the RIAA and figuring out better ways is one thing. I don't think the stuff people are coming up with in here really will help any of it whatsoever. Keep the dream alive, I guess.

[Manic Webb]

Ownership...

The members of the RIAA are made up of the majority of record companies and labels in the US. While technically the RIAA doesn't own the songs, the members of the RIAA do. When an artist records a song, their contract gives part of the ownership of that song to the record company.
ex: When Weird Al Yankovich made the parody song "Amish Paradise," the record company gave him permission to parody Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise," even though Coolio said "no." The company owns the song.

So the RIAA itself doesn't own the songs, but the members of the RIAA own the songs.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]I don't even understand the point of this argument. Do people know what copyrights are? Do people know the contracts these bands get into that obviously involve the RIAA on some form?

Claiming that you own the songs because you bought them is bull****. Yes, you own the CD... fine enough. So if you buy a book, you own it? You can post it wherever the hell you feel like just because you bought that single copy? Apply this to video games, movies, TV shows and anything else with a copyright on them.

I understand the argument that the RIAA technically doesn't own the songs themselves. I actually agree with it, and it's most likely the reason why they haven't done their own version of Kazaa and just forgotten about all this crap.

However, the idea of throwing around the definition of "ownership" like that is really ridiculous. You're pulling at straws to justify something that obviously is not legal. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, but that doesn't change its definition or what it is. This is just semantics.

And really, I don't how how anyone can compare sharing songs with millions of people to lending a friend a CD.

As for the twelve year old, I really think that is most likely blown out of proportion. First of all, they'd most likely get the kid's IP address. I doubt they'd just mail her through the program, as it's probably expected that the email wouldn't be legit as it is. She's 12, she wouldn't have a checking account or credit card to pay the ISP most likely. Her parents would, and thus they are the results that the RIAA would get by searching out this IP and talking to the ISP about it. She just happens to be the one that downloaded the songs, so she's the one mentioned in the news article. I severely doubt it was directly targeted at her as much as it was targeted at the people who pay for the damn connection in general.

I download MP3s. Not on a regular basis. When I do, they're imports or bootlegged concerts of bands that don't fall under the RIAA nonsense as it is. Stuff I can't get in general. This isn't me justifying what I do over what anyone else does. It's just me saying that I do this same stuff. I honestly have no real problem with people downloading MP3s in general (despite how it may seem)... as long as they realize what they are getting into. How can they not? Especially with all the disclaimers on these programs and the news right now.

Yet people still do it. And when they get caught, they're the victim because the RIAA is evil. EVIL!!! That's what I have a problem with. The fact that despite all this, people still are surprised that they can get in trouble. The fact that people think they'reRobin Hood by stealing from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". The fact that people think they can justify it because you're going against the system in some form.

Give me a break. You're not the victim. If anyone, the artists are the main victims at the hands of the RIAA in the first place. You're just kicking them while they're down. Good job. People aren't even giving them the small bit of scraps they can manage to scrounge up from these terrible contracts... because let's face it, we all know no one on this planet is going to buy merchandise and tickets to see every single band whose songs they've downloaded.

Reforming the RIAA and figuring out better ways is one thing. I don't think the stuff people are coming up with in here really will help any of it whatsoever. Keep the dream alive, I guess. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think what he was saying about buying a CD is what you were thinking. I think he means that if I bought a CD, I should be able to share it, as if it were aphysically thing I was sharing. Meaning I should be able to share the song, as if I was giving the CD to my friend for him to listen to. Just as with a book... I can buy a book, read it and let my friend borrow it. I'm not claiming it as my own per-say, but I'm just sharing it. It works with anything pretty much. I bought Splinter Cell for the X-Box, when I got done playing it, I let my friend borrow it. I haven't seen the game in ages now. My frien dhas got it, he never payed for it, I'm simply sharing it with him. He doesn't own it, technically I don't own it, Ubisoft does or whoever made the game, but I'm still sharing it with a friend who did not pay for it. SO two costumers out of one buyer. Songs end up being thousands of customers from one buyer. This may sound extreme but what if I had a thousand friends and I let them all borrow my CD? It would be the same concept, yet one is illegal and one is not.

I download mp3s too. Most of which the RIAA can't touch. But I don't share my mp3s. I always hear this word "sharing".... Is it about downloading or is it about sharing cause to me, those are two totally different things.

I still think ownership applies only to those who make something. The RIAA doesn't MAKE anything, therefor it deosn't OWN anything. Just because they are in contract with th makers doesn't mean S to me. As an artist, and I'm sure you can agree, if i were to draw something, I certainly wouldn't want anyone else claiming owner ship of my peice of art.

As for the 12 year old... yeah they probably didn't know she was 12, buth come on. They figured it out really quick... thats when they should back up and say "You're just a kid, you don't know any better" like anyone else does and give her a little warning and all, I'm sure she would get the point, most kids do, it's called learning..... yet they continue their suit and the poor family has to pay 2,000 bucks on their kids behalf. As her mother said , it's ridiculous.

ANd if CDs sales are down 30%, but the actual nmber of CD being manufactured is down 35%, doesn't that means sales are up 5%?

[James]

[color=#707875]Drix, I only need to refer you to Semjaza's post at this point. He is absolutely 100% correct on the ownership issue.

If I purchase a CD single, I own that copy. But I don't own the rights to the song. I don't have the right to freely distribute my copy to thousands of other people.

I would get into more detail on this point, but once again, I can only point to what Semjaza has said. People who talk about ownership like this really don't understand the copyright issue. And it's a very important point.

The only thing I will add here is a comparison of MP3s to ROMs (ie: emulated video games). I think there are some similarities between the two.

Whenever you go to an emulation site, you see a kind of warning that says something like "You must delete this ROM after 24-hours", or "You must own the original cartridge to download this ROM".

Both of these claims are bogus.

As soon as you download the ROM, you are stealing. And even if you own the original game cartridge, it is technically illegal for you to download a ROM. This isn't just a question of what you own on your person (ie: what you physically hold in your hand); there's a much broader question of copyright and intellectual property.

Obviously, there are some differences between MP3 and ROM. But I think that there are also some similarities.

People continually try to make excuses as to why downloading MP3s is "right" or "acceptable". But at the end of the day, it isn't legal. And it does nothing but hurt the artist. That is the basic, raw fact about it. You can go into semantics and start splitting hairs or whatever...but that is nothing but an excuse. [/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve:[/i][b]
ANd if CDs sales are down 30%, but the actual nmber of CD being manufactured is down 35%, doesn't that means sales are up 5%?[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]Not necessarily. Manufacturing might be down because sales were down initially.

I don't know the full story, nor do I have any figures that tell me [i]when[/i] either of these specific events came into being. So I could be wrong.

But generally speaking, it's not a simple add-and-subtract thing. Lower manufacturing is probably a result of declining sales -- there aren't many other explanations. Record companies wouldn't lower product output if sales were up by 5%.[/color]