RIAA declares CD-Ripping 'illegal'

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-09 08:28am

Dooey Jo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Because the current model is harming society and handicapping the entire computer industry. Either come up with a better model or scrap the current model entirely, because the current model is shit.
Did you miss the three times I agreed with that statement?

No, but I see how you keep making arguments that ignore it anyway. This whole "OK, that's a good point, BUUUUUUUT ..." style of pseudo-concession is bullshit.

Yeah, whatever, go with my newspaper or museum analogy then. I'm asking why you seem to suggest that covering one's expenses by charging a smaller sum from a larger number of people is an unfair business model compared to for instance a contract.

Case in point. It's not about whether it's an "unfair business model". It's about whether it's harming society. You keep making arguments that ignore this point, yet you act as if I'm treating you unfairly by acting as though you have not acknowledged it.

I've stated several times in this thread that I disagree with current copyright laws, especially in that they hold too long. An engineer expect to be paid when someone wants to use a patent of his, for as long as the patent hold. Couldn't artists be expected to be paid every time someone, for example, downloads their song (after which the buyer can do whatever he likes with the song, except things that hurt the artist's sales too much; you're not allowed to give away a patent you've bought the right to use either, as far as I know), for as long as the copyright holds (which currently is way too long, in case I have to state this again)?

Not if the mechanism of doing so is harming society. There you go AGAIN, ignoring this point that you say you've acknowledged three times.

That's not the kinds of tolls I meant, I meant those that are to cover the construction costs only, after which the toll is removed (in the case of a state-owned bridge, but not necessarily the hypothetical privately owned).

What difference does that make? The point remains that you are physically using someone's property. IP is not the same thing as physical property, no matter how many times IP wankers say that it is. You can't just make an instant copy of a bridge. And if you could, I don't see how the owner of the original bridge would be able to charge you tolls for using your copy.

MJ12 Commando · Post by **MJ12 Commando** » 2008-01-09 10:22am

So copyright law, or at least the version the RIAA endorses, is totally fucked. This isn't anything new. Sane copyright law, for example, would not make it illegal to download software you had a valid license for (yes I have done it and gotten busted for it, fortunately it did NOT go to court), not make stuff like ripping CDs to your computer illegal, allow you to borrow games or music or movies from your friends, and the like.

The Fair Use laws existed to keep copyright law sane. Unfortunately the RIAA doesn't seem to give a whit about them.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-01-09 10:57am

MJ12 Commando wrote:So copyright law, or at least the version the RIAA endorses, is totally fucked. This isn't anything new. Sane copyright law, for example, would not make it illegal to download software you had a valid license for (yes I have done it and gotten busted for it, fortunately it did NOT go to court), not make stuff like ripping CDs to your computer illegal, allow you to borrow games or music or movies from your friends, and the like.

Copyright law generally prohibits distribution of material. Since most P2P systems require that you upload as well as download, that's probably what nailed you.

The Fair Use laws existed to keep copyright law sane. Unfortunately the RIAA doesn't seem to give a whit about them.

The Fair Use section of the Copyright Law also are a lot more restrictive than people think.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-09 11:18am

phongn wrote:The Fair Use section of the Copyright Law also are a lot more restrictive than people think.

True, it doesn't actually permit free file-sharing. But it does demonstrate that artists do NOT have innate legal right to apply any restrictions they please to what is done with their work: it is written in law that individuals may violate the artist's wishes with impunity in certain cases.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2008-01-13 10:44am

Realistically exclusive music copyright should last twenty years and the music industry in America have cheated in the last twenty years by extending exclusive music copyright (although there should be a indefinite protection against blatant plagiarism, just don't keep on paying for the fucking thing).

But it seems like the music industry has fiddled the books, so why should the consumers feel bad at infringing on exlusive copyright that has been unethically extended at the expense of the public domain (ie society)? I guess the sudden surge of the so-called Performance Rights Society's nonsense in the UK could be reaction to the UK allowing music copyright to be voided after half a century....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-13 11:22am

The fact is that the music industry has successfully convinced a lot of people that copyright is some sort of innate and universal ethics concept. It's not. It's nothing more than social engineering, and our failure to remember that has led to this morass. The music industry is acting out of nothing more than self-interest, and consumers have every right to look after their self-interest too.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2008-01-13 04:10pm

I've started a thread about music copyright over on Trek BBS.

The professional music writer's participating that thread sound rather selfish and strawman a lot...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-13 08:12pm

Big Orange wrote:I've started a thread about music copyright over on Trek BBS.

The professional music writer's participating that thread sound rather selfish and strawman a lot...

Why should a professional writer's opinion carry any special weight on this matter anyway? They have by far the most obvious personal incentive, hence they are incapable of being objective about the subject.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2008-01-13 08:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Big Orange wrote:I've started a thread about music copyright over on Trek BBS.

The professional music writer's participating that thread sound rather selfish and strawman a lot...
Why should a professional writer's opinion carry any special weight on this matter anyway? They have by far the most obvious personal incentive, hence they are incapable of being objective about the subject.

It might be instructive to learn what arguments they might put forth. From the sound of it, though, they aren't making much of the opportunity.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2008-01-18 07:07pm

SCRawl wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Big Orange wrote:I've started a thread about music copyright over on Trek BBS.

The professional music writer's participating that thread sound rather selfish and strawman a lot...
Why should a professional writer's opinion carry any special weight on this matter anyway? They have by far the most obvious personal incentive, hence they are incapable of being objective about the subject.
It might be instructive to learn what arguments they might put forth. From the sound of it, though, they aren't making much of the opportunity.

As said before I can fully understand an indefinate protection against obvious plagiarism, but setting up an elaborate and unethical system of constant payment for repeated use, viciously clamping down on the consumer base in the process? I think only major corporations could really get anything out of the current outmoded and corrupted copyright laws, but even they are screwing themselves in the long run by not giving a little back in return.