RIAA declares CD-Ripping 'illegal'

[Sarevok]

Regarding the arguement about piracy in this thread...

The argument is if people copy content freely the producers can no longer remain profitable. So people should pitch in and buy their stuff instead of freely copying a friends copy. Now should not paying content producers be a voluntary act of benovalence ? Asking people to support an industry by force is nothing but extortion !

[The Dark]

I realize this is horribly unrealistic, but it would be tremendously amusing to have some of the indie labels whose music has been involved sue the RIAA for fraud (and/or have the victims sue for extortion) and then go after the RIAA under the RICO Act (again). They've already lost the MP3 case in 1998, against Diamond Multimedia.

[darthbob88]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same entity that tried to sue Russia, or a company based therein, for some trillion$ of dollars, more than the entire Russian GDP?

[Zablorg]

Does the RIAA have any power at all?

[Dooey Jo]

Regarding the arguement about piracy in this thread...

The argument is if people copy content freely the producers can no longer remain profitable. So people should pitch in and buy their stuff instead of freely copying a friends copy. Now should not paying content producers be a voluntary act of benovalence ?

Uhm, no? They've devoted time and resources to create the content. If they decide to release it for free, they're the benevolent ones, but they have every right to charge for it.

Asking people to support an industry by force is nothing but extortion !

Are you being ironic? It's pretty simple: If you don't want to support the music industry, don't listen to their music.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Are you being ironic? It's pretty simple: If you don't want to support the music industry, don't listen to their music.

Um, care to explain how the mere act of listening to music provides any sort of tangible support to the record industry? Last I checked 'support' generally involves some sort of material or financial obligation unless you're wading into the murkier areas of 'moral' or 'emotional' support.

[Vendetta]

Um, care to explain how the mere act of listening to music provides any sort of tangible support to the record industry? Last I checked 'support' generally involves some sort of material or financial obligation unless you're wading into the murkier areas of 'moral' or 'emotional' support.

And if you don't want to pay that financial obligation, as set by the producer, don't listen to the music. It's not a necessity, it's an entertainment.

[alexholker]

Um, care to explain how the mere act of listening to music provides any sort of tangible support to the record industry?

It doesn't by itself, but typically the record industry offers to exchange their music for your material support. Implicit in this arrangement is the idea that if you are taking advantage of what they are offering, you will reciprocate by giving them what they ask in return.

[Darth Wong]

Uhm, no? They've devoted time and resources to create the content. If they decide to release it for free, they're the benevolent ones, but they have every right to charge for it.

Song writers also devote time and resources to write songs, yet countless people strum "Stairway to Heaven" on their guitars every day without paying any royalties. Shouldn't they have the right to charge for that too?

Your logic appears to be that if someone put time and effort into a piece of IP, then he has an inherent privilege to charge people for any use of that IP that he does not approve. Using that logic, a kid should not even be able to play his favourite rock song on his own guitar, because he's using someone else's IP without permission.

The fact is that music was originally a performance art. You charged people to perform it for them. Along came mechanical and magnetic playback technology, and all of a sudden the people who owned the means of transmission could charge for automatic performances instead of live ones. And then along came digital playback technology, and all of a sudden it became so easy to copy stuff that the economic centre of gravity of the music industry should have shifted somewhat back toward live performances (although not entirely, of course). But it hasn't, because the people who dominate the means of transmission wish to keep it exactly where it is, and not allow any kind of shift at all. There is no inherent right here: this whole situation was a temporary phenomenon brought about by shifts in technology, and continuing changes create a fluid situation. Two hundred years ago, the idea of musicians being paid without actually having to perform would have struck people as totally absurd.

[Sarevok]

Uhm, no? They've devoted time and resources to create the content. If they decide to release it for free, they're the benevolent ones, but they have every right to charge for it.

Think about it this way.

Suppose I have Green Day's songs on my hard drive now. It's now a series of 1s and 0s on my hard drive. So why can't I make a similar set of 1s and 0s on a friends PC ?

What if I have a fucking huge amount of patience and just to say fuck to recording industry write down all the 1s and 0s on a 2 mb mp3 clip to paper with a pen; then type it back on someones PCs, save it as a text file and with a little C++ wizadry write an app that reads the 1s and 0s and plays them as if normal bit stream from a mp3 ? Do I get a Guinness record or jail time for that ?

[Dooey Jo]

Uhm, no? They've devoted time and resources to create the content. If they decide to release it for free, they're the benevolent ones, but they have every right to charge for it.

Song writers also devote time and resources to write songs, yet countless people strum "Stairway to Heaven" on their guitars every day without paying any royalties. Shouldn't they have the right to charge for that too?

Your logic appears to be that if someone put time and effort into a piece of IP, then he has an inherent privilege to charge people for any use of that IP that he does not approve. Using that logic, a kid should not even be able to play his favourite rock song on his own guitar, because he's using someone else's IP without permission.

No, I mostly meant the studio recordings and related work as the actual content, which is what most bands sell, not the song's notes or lyrics as such, which I suppose could be sold through notebooks if they wanted to.

The fact is that music was originally a performance art. You charged people to perform it for them. Along came mechanical and magnetic playback technology, and all of a sudden the people who owned the means of transmission could charge for automatic performances instead of live ones. And then along came digital playback technology, and all of a sudden it became so easy to copy stuff that the economic centre of gravity of the music industry should have shifted somewhat back toward live performances (although not entirely, of course). But it hasn't, because the people who dominate the means of transmission wish to keep it exactly where it is, and not allow any kind of shift at all. There is no inherent right here: this whole situation was a temporary phenomenon brought about by shifts in technology, and continuing changes create a fluid situation. Two hundred years ago, the idea of musicians being paid without actually having to perform would have struck people as totally absurd.

The musicians did (usually) expect to be paid whenever someone listened to them play, which happened to be during live performances because that was the only means possible. Now they record a performance instead and anyone who wants to listen to them can buy that recording. I suppose everyone could bring their own recorder and go to a live performance, but that's a tad bit impractical. I don't agree with what the RIAA are doing, nor do I think that current copyright laws are very good, but I don't think that means that musicians should be expected to give away their work for free.

Suppose I have Green Day's songs on my hard drive now. It's now a series of 1s and 0s on my hard drive. So why can't I make a similar set of 1s and 0s on a friends PC ?

That's not what I objected to, it was this little piece:

Now should not paying content producers be a voluntary act of benovalence ?

[Starglider]

Uhm, no? They've devoted time and resources to create the content. If they decide to release it for free, they're the benevolent ones, but they have every right to charge for it.

This is not a 'natural right'. Copyright is an attempt to control what third parties do with their own time and property. This is a restrictive legal construct that we supposedly instituted for the net benefit to society as a whole, similar to trademarks, patents and the whole concept of a limited-liability corporation. Right now I'm unconvinced that the horribly restrictive US implementation of copyright is any better than no copyright at all. The benefits to artists are irrelevant; laws should not exist to support a special interest group at the taxpayer's expense. The relevant question is what degree of copyright protection maximises the benefits to the population as a whole, in terms of new content availability versus freedom to use and distribute existing content. IMHO that is maximised at something like the original US constitutional provision for copyright (tweaked for relevance), not the current implementation.

[Durandal]

Copyright was originally intended to allow artists to make money from their work while also providing motivation for them to keep creating. I don't see how the current copyright laws could possibly provide that motivation.

[Sarevok]

Suppose I have Green Day's songs on my hard drive now. It's now a series of 1s and 0s on my hard drive. So why can't I make a similar set of 1s and 0s on a friends PC ?

That's not what I objected to, it was this little piece:

Now should not paying content producers be a voluntary act of benovalence ?

If you have no objection to people's right to clone music files then you do realize musicians would not be able to charge money far greater than price of a blank CD anymore. In this scenario paying musicians become a voluntary act with people who are really really big fans buying the CD. So where is the confusion here ?

[Darth Wong]

Copyright was invented to provide a social benefit: encouraging more aggressive creation of artistic works. If copyright is now causing social harm, it needs to be rethought. It's as simple as that. Pretending that copyright is some kind of innate universal concept handed down from God is idiocy of the highest order.

[Dooey Jo]

If you have no objection to people's right to clone music files then you do realize musicians would not be able to charge money far greater than price of a blank CD anymore. In this scenario paying musicians become a voluntary act with people who are really really big fans buying the CD. So where is the confusion here ?

You can't really say you're friends with so many people that no-one would have to buy the music in the first place, can you? Why should it be a "right" to copy music you've bought (or not; if you haven't bought it, you don't really get to copy it to anyone else) to random people you don't know?

This is not a 'natural right'.

What in fact is a "natural right"? In case it's not clear, the thing I'm taking issue with is the claim that musicians should give away their music (not their sheet music or anything, but the recorded audio) for free. Why should that be so? I don't know of any other industry that is expected to provide a service for free. Is music some sort of charity work now?

[Starglider]

This is not a 'natural right'.

What in fact is a "natural right"?

There aren't actually any 'natural rights', which is why I put the term in quotes. Nature gives you exactly zero rights to life, liberty or anything else. There is no objective morality written in the stars; all rights are human constructs.

The distinction I was making was between individual rights which I believe a civilised society should grant everyone on general principle, and 'rights' which are granted solely for the collective benefit to society. Copyright doesn't allow you to do anything; it is solely about preventing other people from doing something. It is legally equivalent to granting the first orchard owner a monopoly on selling apples, because 'allowing other people to plant orchards and start selling apples is stealing revenue that would have come to me!'. Every copyright is a monopoly that costs the government (i.e. taxpayers) money to enforce while forcing people to pay more than they otherwise would, meaning that many never get to benefit from useful or entertaining material that could have been provided to them at marginal cost.

The only reason to have copyright is if the increase in output of new content is worth the costs and hassle.

In case it's not clear, the thing I'm taking issue with is the claim that musicians should give away their music (not their sheet music or anything, but the recorded audio) for free. Why should that be so?

It isn't. Abolishing copyright would create no such obligation. They can keep their music private, they can strip-search everyone who comes to one of their concerts for recording devices, they can charge as much as they like for CDs. Just don't act surprised when no one comes to the concerts and the CDs can't compete against copies.

I don't know of any other industry that is expected to provide a service for free. Is music some sort of charity work now?

There's no expectation to provide a service for free. If someone wants you to play somewhere, you can and should charge them for it. Rather the problem is the artist's expectation that they should continue to get money indefinitely, with no further effort on their part. If a person from any other profession wants a continuous income stream, we have to provide a continuous stream of work; why should artists be special?

The problem is of course how to raise money to fund expensive productions. Copyright is a solution to that, but it isn't necessarily the best one; certainly the current US version of it isn't.

[Dooey Jo]

There's no expectation to provide a service for free. If someone wants you to play somewhere, you can and should charge them for it. Rather the problem is the artist's expectation that they should continue to get money indefinitely, with no further effort on their part. If a person from any other profession wants a continuous income stream, we have to provide a continuous stream of work; why should artists be special?

Yes, but now you're talking about the strange timespan of current copyright laws and royalties, which I said aren't good. If an artist makes a song, I think it's a fair expectation to get paid whenever someone buys or downloads the single (or album). That would offer a somewhat continuous income stream, but it wouldn't last indefinitely.

The problem is of course how to raise money to fund expensive productions. Copyright is a solution to that, but it isn't necessarily the best one; certainly the current US version of it isn't.

I'm pretty sure online sales of songs alone would bring in quite a lot of money, if the industry got around to making it as practical as pirating a song currently is, and the pirates would fuck off. Of course, I don't know if either is ever going to happen, especially as the kiddie pirates tend to use such stunning arguments as "why should I pay a whole dollar to buy a song online, when I can just download it off DC++ for free?" (but apparently they can use $100 monthly to buy useless ringtones and shit for their cell phones)...

[Starglider]

If an artist makes a song, I think it's a fair expectation to get paid whenever someone buys or downloads the single (or album). That would offer a somewhat continuous income stream, but it wouldn't last indefinitely.

By that logic, an engineer who designed a bridge should get some money every time someone drives over it. The engineers who designed your monitor should get money every time you look at it. Hell actors get residuals just for appearing, so every person who built that bridge and every worker who made that monitor should keep getting paid by you. Carpenters should get paid every time you sit in one of their pieces of furniture.

Strictly this is the 'pay per view' model (which incidentally big media companies are pushing as hard as they can) and copyright is more like having to by a license to cross each bridge (any number of times) and a license to sit in each chair (any number of times). The point stands; artists expect to be paid every time their work is used. No other type of worker does. Why the hell should artists have this unique privilidge?

The answer is of course that they shouldn't. They should have the innate right to however much money they can convince someone to pay them to do the original work - and no more. Anything beyond that can only be justified by net benefit to society as a whole.

The problem is of course how to raise money to fund expensive productions. Copyright is a solution to that, but it isn't necessarily the best one; certainly the current US version of it isn't.

I'm pretty sure online sales of songs alone would bring in quite a lot of money, if the industry got around to making it as practical as pirating a song currently is, and the pirates would fuck off.

Yes well that's another issue. Certainly insane restrictions on how content is used are bad. But I was mainly talking about the insanely long death + fifty years copyright term. The original 14 + 14 years was quite adequate (with some tweaks as to applicability).

[Vendetta]

Copyright was invented to provide a social benefit: encouraging more aggressive creation of artistic works. If copyright is now causing social harm, it needs to be rethought. It's as simple as that. Pretending that copyright is some kind of innate universal concept handed down from God is idiocy of the highest order.

There's a difference, though, between recognising that the system is flawed and in need of major reform and the position that some seem to take, that because the current copyright system is flawed it should be ignored altogether and that all musical performances should automatically become public domain.

[General Zod]

You can't really say you're friends with so many people that no-one would have to buy the music in the first place, can you? Why should it be a "right" to copy music you've bought (or not; if you haven't bought it, you don't really get to copy it to anyone else) to random people you don't know?

Why should it be a right to give a copy to people you do know for that matter? What exactly is the legal or moral difference between giving a copy to a friend or a complete stranger anyway? Since you seem to insist that there is one.

[Dooey Jo]

By that logic, an engineer who designed a bridge should get some money every time someone drives over it. The engineers who designed your monitor should get money every time you look at it. Hell actors get residuals just for appearing, so every person who built that bridge and every worker who made that monitor should keep getting paid by you. Carpenters should get paid every time you sit in one of their pieces of furniture.

Songs are not bridges, though. Engineers are commissioned by the state to build a bridge, and those who use it have already paid for doing so through taxes. If the engineer built it in his own backyard, I suppose he could charge people for using it, if he chooses to. Likewise, if musicians were financed by the state to produce music, it should be free. They're not however, and the very idea seems to piss off a whole lot of people.

Strictly this is the 'pay per view' model (which incidentally big media companies are pushing as hard as they can) and copyright is more like having to by a license to cross each bridge (any number of times) and a license to sit in each chair (any number of times). The point stands; artists expect to be paid every time their work is used. No other type of worker does. Why the hell should artists have this unique privilidge?

Because they offer a different kind of service and are not paid in advance for doing their work? Museums (that aren't free) work in the same way, for instance. I don't see how there's necessarily anything wrong with it. How else would you propose to finance such things?

The answer is of course that they shouldn't. They should have the innate right to however much money they can convince someone to pay them to do the original work - and no more. Anything beyond that can only be justified by net benefit to society as a whole.

What about newspaper companies? Should they not charge money per newspaper sold, and instead get money from somewhere else?

Yes well that's another issue. Certainly insane restrictions on how content is used are bad. But I was mainly talking about the insanely long death + fifty years copyright term. The original 14 + 14 years was quite adequate (with some tweaks as to applicability).

Yes, I agree with that. I don't see how the content producer could possibly benefit from his work being copyrighted when he's dead.

[Darth Wong]

By that logic, an engineer who designed a bridge should get some money every time someone drives over it. The engineers who designed your monitor should get money every time you look at it. Hell actors get residuals just for appearing, so every person who built that bridge and every worker who made that monitor should keep getting paid by you. Carpenters should get paid every time you sit in one of their pieces of furniture.

Songs are not bridges, though. Engineers are commissioned by the state to build a bridge, and those who use it have already paid for doing so through taxes. If the engineer built it in his own backyard, I suppose he could charge people for using it, if he chooses to. Likewise, if musicians were financed by the state to produce music, it should be free. They're not however, and the very idea seems to piss off a whole lot of people.

Show how any of those distinctions invalidate the analogy for the purpose of refuting your logic, moron.

I hate the way imbeciles always respond to an analogy by pointing out that it is not 100% identical.

[Dooey Jo]

You can't really say you're friends with so many people that no-one would have to buy the music in the first place, can you? Why should it be a "right" to copy music you've bought (or not; if you haven't bought it, you don't really get to copy it to anyone else) to random people you don't know?

Why should it be a right to give a copy to people you do know for that matter? What exactly is the legal or moral difference between giving a copy to a friend or a complete stranger anyway? Since you seem to insist that there is one.

Well I suppose you could give it to a total stranger if you wanted to, if you have the right to give it to a friend. The idea is that copying should be allowed for personal use, and making mix tapes for friends and similar stuff usually fall under that. Do you think that giving a song you've bought to a million strangers you've never met should be called personal use too?

[General Zod]

Well I suppose you could give it to a total stranger if you wanted to, if you have the right to give it to a friend.

In other words, there is none.

The idea is that copying should be allowed for personal use, and making mix tapes for friends and similar stuff usually fall under that. Do you think that giving a song you've bought to a million strangers you've never met should be called personal use too?

Why the fuck not? What difference does it make if someone gives a copy to a few or a lot of people as long as they're not profiting from it? If someone really wanted to all they'd have to do is take the original song, remix enough of it and viola. Their remix is protected under copyright laws too, and the original artist couldn't do shit.