NationStates

Since when did the RIAA being technically right give them the right to act like a complete jerk about it? You stole $20 of stuff! Now we bankrupt you forever !

Seriously uncalled for.

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:I pointed out an error in thinking which distorts your judgement about economics. If you don't want to consider the contradiction between the two ideas, and benefit from a clearer understanding of what you profess to care so much about, that's your business.

If I had a nickel for everybody who knew so much more about what I think than I do and couldn't wait to show me all the ways I'd gone horribly wrong, I'd have 1.9 million. I can't help but notice you cut out the actual relevant part of my response, which, far from being a hijack, is the heart and soul of the matter.

Heinleinites wrote:Simply choosing not to buy a good is a spending choice, yes. It's up to you, it's your money, spend it(or not) as you wish.

Heinleinites wrote:Children steal things, or are given them by the people in charge of them. Adults, on the other hand, identify what they want, and then pay for it, with their work or their money or their time.

Or in other words, feed the monopolies. It's your money baby, spend it how you like. Yeah baby, make that monopoly. Get that all-consuming vortex moving. What? That's it? It's over? Oh. Another market-crash.
So adults like making monopoles and market crashes. I get it now. Mmmm yeah, yeah you like it like that.

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:choice, isn't it?
But honestly I don't think the government should even take a side. When they did, they took the wrong side (protecting old industries based on copyright, by strengthening copyright laws in so many countries.) They took the side of business against the side of free speech!

You're right. But then I was just accentuating you anyway. Really everyone will have to Socialize the RIAA. Under you and I. Or whoever. But especially me.
OH GAWD I'M WITTY

Heinleinites wrote:Yes and yes to your questions. But I'm not a bit of a free-marketer, I'm the free-marketer

You lie.

When there's no one else to point it out, feel free to count on me.

Heinleinites wrote:But in the end, when you strip all the facile rationalizations off it, you are stealing something from somebody else

No.
Buy a dictionary and read the definition of "steal".

Unauthorized viewing of a work of art does not fall under the dictionary, legal, or any other definition of theft that matters.

Your use of "from somebody else" only furthers the lie, as it implies harm being done to another, which is exactly what doesn't happen in unauthorized viewing of a work of art.


In fact, the whole concept of copyright is a purely artificial construct which has been created by no one else but the government. Without governmental intervention, there would be DRM, sure, but no copyright.

Vault 10 wrote:In fact, the whole concept of copyright is a purely artificial construct which has been created by no one else but the government. Without governmental intervention, there would be DRM, sure, but no copyright.

As I understand it, copyright was actually established in law to weaken the effect of the stationers' guild-imposed monopoly on the creation and publication of the written word. It may be argued that that function is somewhat diminished now, since nobody can impose a monopoly on internet publication except those who control the routing tables and addressing heirarchy, but it was initially the way to prevent an oppressive, monopolising force in publication, rather than enable it.

Vault 10 wrote:In fact, the whole concept of copyright is a purely artificial construct which has been created by no one else but the government. Without governmental intervention, there would be DRM, sure, but no copyright.

Maybe, but over here, in the real world, there are such things as copyrights, and when you break them, bend them, or in some other fashion yet to be semantically defined transgress them, you are, in fact, comitting an illegal act.

Now, personally, I don't give a damn where or how you acquire your music. Somebody else's illegal downloading neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. What I do dislike is the attempt to position it as some kind of civil disobedience or 'protest action'. Illegal downloading isn't 'revolutionary' or 'activism', or 'speaking truth to power' it's spoiled children who think they shouldn't have to pay for what they want and are emboldened by the anonymity afforded by the Internet.

Heinleinites wrote:Illegal downloading isn't 'revolutionary' or 'activism', or 'speaking truth to power' it's spoiled children who think they shouldn't have to pay for what they want and are emboldened by the anonymity afforded by the Internet.

I didn't know that adults were spoiled children. Considering that most people who download illegally are adults.

Conserative Morality wrote:Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

She sure does. The fine should be $24.

Heinleinites wrote:

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:I pointed out an error in thinking which distorts your judgement about economics. If you don't want to consider the contradiction between the two ideas, and benefit from a clearer understanding of what you profess to care so much about, that's your business.

If I had a nickel for everybody who knew so much more about what I think than I do and couldn't wait to show me all the ways I'd gone horribly wrong, I'd have 1.9 million. I can't help but notice you cut out the actual relevant part of my response, which, far from being a hijack, is the heart and soul of the matter.

Sorry about that, Heinleinites. I see now that your post was relevant to the topic.

Kindly pretend that I meant "My attempt at a hijack ends here."

I grant that making a copy of some other person's work (which they have made public on a condition of payment) is not necessarily neutral. It may be a "crime" in the ethical sense but it is NOT directly equivalent to theft.

"Theft" of the content (music) is not equivalent to theft of any physical thing. To use the same word for both is inaccurate, because it is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that copying the content deprives someone of anything, including money.

The argument that "if you make a copy without paying, you will not buy a right to listen to the copy" is incomplete. It may be true in some instances, but the fact that the person who does make a copy still has a choice to buy, or not to buy, the rights to a copy AFTER taking it for no money, shows that the ownership of a physical thing is not precisely the same 'ownership' as "rights to use a copy."

Copying data does not in any degree diminish what is copied, nor deprive anyone of what is copied. Physical things are in limited supply. Copies are not.

If you can find any definition (and particularly a legal definition) of theft, which does not rely on the idea of "taking" and/or "depriving some other of the use of" then I will reconsider this.

Copying anything is not directly equivalent to theft of a physical thing.

Heinleinites wrote:Maybe, but over here, in the real world, there are such things as copyrights, and when you break them, bend them, or in some other fashion yet to be semantically defined transgress them, you are, in fact, comitting an illegal act.

If you're such a lover of the over here, in the real world, then you surely must also accept the fact that over here, in the real world, there are such things as Darknet and proxy networks. Besides, over here, in the real world, laws are just scribbles on pieces of paper, and there's no reason at all to cry a river about what these scribbles say about what you do, as long as you keep yourself safe.

Heinleinites wrote:Illegal downloading isn't 'revolutionary' or 'activism', or 'speaking truth to power' it's spoiled children who think they shouldn't have to pay for what they want and are emboldened by the anonymity afforded by the Internet.

I'm not all that involved in unauthorized downloading. I'm involved in unauthorized uploading (seeding) and actively convincing people to avoid the RIAA labels when possible, buy non-RIAA labels, and, if they want music from a RIAA-infected band that badly, at least download it.
These parts about uploading and convincing others to avoid RIAA are what is activism, not the downloading part.

Sibirsky wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

She sure does. The fine should be $24.

This. Fined the fair market value for the songs. That's it. Charging individuals making minimum wage completely absurd punitive damages like this is ridiculous. Do they expect o actually receive the awarded money? Really. This woman will probably not make $2mil in her entire life.

Obviously the fine is very high to serve as a scare tactic more than anything else, to deter pirates from downloading illegally. She will probably never be able to pay the 1.9 million dollars.

It would be interesting to see what they do to someone that, say, downloads millions of songs. Obviously they'd slap the maximum punitive damages on the person. *starts thinking about how many songs to download, x, such that 150000x would be greater than the sum of the assets of the clients of the RIAA, or greater than the net worth of the richest person on Earth, or something else amusingly ridiculous*

Where`s the bittorent police to save people like this? If only they had some.

RIAA= 81tch3s

Vault 10 wrote:

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Yes. That's what I'm thinking. But I would reverse the onus of proof.
The artist's names are getting exposure in the reporting of the case. If they have nothing to say about that (and aren't dead already obviously) they implicitly support the RIAA's action.

"Implicit support"... That's a weak call.

It may be. I want to be sure you're getting my point, so I'll rephrase it.

Any artist whose song is used in a suit of this kind would be boycotted UNLESS they specifically renounce the RIAA. Reverse the onus of proof.

Please don't mistake my posts thus far as "they're big bad companies so we should have a lovein to raise consciousness."

I'm starting with the idea of a boycott and trying to improve on the boycott as an approach to building some workable alternative and extinct the companies who behave like Sony does. Preferably without any potential for any other centralized manipulation of the market to arise in its place.

I'm not happy with the idea of targetting the artists. It's just a starting point.

The question here is, "wouldn't I do the same?".

For instance, IRL, I develop armament systems of naval vessels, the point being for them to defend our country and all that. When they end up being used to bully smaller countries to get their oil for free, I'm disturbed. But since protesting and refusing to do my job won't help anything, I don't do that. And my position is way less shaky than that of the bands who only rise and fall at the whim of the marketing departments.

Certainly it is hard to imagine a conventional boycott being so effective that artists would find the choice revenue neutral -- ie a bad bet either way. And I wouldn't want that.

It has to be worth their while either way. Perhaps those people who pay for music could go get free copies AND donate money directly to the artists they're boycotting. The bands would be nowhere in the charts, all over the net, and just as well off as if their label was selling all the music their fans listen too. But the company wouldn't.

Again, it's just speculation. I think in words, writing helps sometimes. Not so much when I'm angry ...

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:Sure, but how does the label know that you're NOT buying for that reason? They would just have fewer sales and blame it on piracy.

The point is not for them to know - it's for them to file Chapter 7. [/quote]

Ten years from now, and only if they haven't morphed into a standover racket by then?
It's not the ten years I have a problem with. It's all the little people getting hurt in the meantime.

[quoteThese companies have long gotten the message. They just don't care. They won't settle for any compromise. They've shown the intention to pursue their idea of fully monopolized and controlled market to the bitter end.
Who will win, I don't know, but I'm doing my part for my side. A double-proxified home computer on a high-speed connection seeding over Darknet and bt 24/7 and a server-side seedbox, that's a fair contribution.[/quote]

I don't pass any judgement on your decision to do that. But I'm not going to feel guilty because I'm not doing enough, either. I'm very early in the process of deciding what I want to do about it.

Ifreann wrote:It would be interesting to see what they do to someone that, say, downloads millions of songs. Obviously they'd slap the maximum punitive damages on the person. *starts thinking about how many songs to download, x, such that 150000x would be greater than the sum of the assets of the clients of the RIAA, or greater than the net worth of the richest person on Earth, or something else amusingly ridiculous*

It's for the court to decide whether the maximum fine is applied. The really ugly part, though, is that they can't find against them and apply less than $750 per song. That's one crappy law!

Flaming Psycopaths wrote:Consider that the RIAA is just as happy to screw the artists as it is to screw the public. They do not care about anything but lining their own pockets.

Consider that, according to the newspaper article to which Newmanistan provided a link in the seventh post before yours, they were actually willing to settle out-of-court for around $3'000-$5'000 and it was the defendant who insisted on going to trial...

Flaming Psycopaths wrote:A lot of the artists are not much better. I lost all respect for David Crosby when he was trying to get legislation passed that would allow his grandchildren to collect royalties from his songs for 60 years after he is dead. the guy who makes chairs for a living doesn't get a royalty payment every time someone sits in the chair he made. If he wants to keep getting paid he has to make more chairs.

But then it's rather bit harder for anybody who buys one of those chairs to create & distribute copies of it to other people, so that those don't have to buy from the chair-maker, isn't it?

Maurepas wrote:Especially when no one feels any attack of conscience when downloading music...

Because the only people who are doing so are the freeloaders who weren't prepared to pay an honest price for the goods, perhaps? What did somebody back in this thread's first page say that the price of actually paying for the tracks concerned would have been, 99 cents each wasn't it? That's surely low enough for buying a reasonable number of tracks to be within most people's means...

Vault 10 wrote:These companies have long gotten the message. They just don't care. They won't settle for any compromise. They've shown the intention to pursue their idea of fully monopolized and controlled market to the bitter end.

Except that, according to a newspaper article to which Newmanistan provided a link in this thread's first page, they were actually willing to settle out-of-court for around $3'000-$5'000 and it was the defendant who insisted on going to trial...

The_pantless_hero wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

She sure does. The fine should be $24.

This. Fined the fair market value for the songs. That's it.

So the penalty for stealing something should be just having to pay the same price that you'd have paid if you'd bought it honestly in the first place. That's moronic! It removes any incentive other than personal morality for ever paying for anything that one might get away with stealing, and grossly favours thieves over those of us who are honest enough to pay for stuff.

The_pantless_hero wrote:Charging individuals making minimum wage completely absurd punitive damages like this is ridiculous.

A/ Can you provide a reputable source that says she only makes minimum wage?
B/ Are you suggesting that the fines charged for offences should always be proportionate to the perpetrators' incomes, rather than to the nature & extent of the crimes involved?

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:It's for the court to decide whether the maximum fine is applied. The really ugly part, though, is that they can't find against them and apply less than $750 per song. That's one crappy law!

If the fine was to be no higher than the original price of the product in question, there would be no incentive to avoid illegal downloading.

Robarya wrote:

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:It's for the court to decide whether the maximum fine is applied. The really ugly part, though, is that they can't find against them and apply less than $750 per song. That's one crappy law!

If the fine was to be no higher than the original price of the product in question, there would be no incentive to avoid illegal downloading.

Where did I ever say the upper limit should be .99c a song?

I think you might have me confused with some other poster.

Was there actually a jury?

Sometimes these cases are just heard by a judge alone, or a panel of judges.

I am amazed that real human beings would punish one of their own that way, for injuring a bunch of greedy nincompoops like the record czars.

BunnySaurus Bugsii wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It would be interesting to see what they do to someone that, say, downloads millions of songs. Obviously they'd slap the maximum punitive damages on the person. *starts thinking about how many songs to download, x, such that 150000x would be greater than the sum of the assets of the clients of the RIAA, or greater than the net worth of the richest person on Earth, or something else amusingly ridiculous*

It's for the court to decide whether the maximum fine is applied. The really ugly part, though, is that they can't find against them and apply less than $750 per song. That's one crappy law!

I know, but since the idea, I mean hypothetical situation involves downloading many many many songs they'd probably apply the maximum fine.

Pope Joan wrote:Was there actually a jury?

Sometimes these cases are just heard by a judge alone, or a panel of judges.

I am amazed that real human beings would punish one of their own that way, for injuring a bunch of greedy nincompoops like the record czars.

Last I heard, judges are "real human beings"...

Robarya wrote:Obviously the fine is very high to serve as a scare tactic more than anything else, to deter pirates from downloading illegally. She will probably never be able to pay the 1.9 million dollars.

Obviously, and that's just the point. I know they're never going to collect $1.9 million from this woman. They'll settle for an insignificant fraction. If the $1.9 million fine is intended to scare people, but everyone knows that there's no way to collect that much money and that the RIAA will always settle for a more reasonable sum, then why fine the $1.9 million in the first place. Its value as a scare tactic goes out the window when we hear the RIAA saying they're always willing to settle for a lot less. It just seems futile. It's bad PR for an organization that hasn't had good PR in its history and, above all, it's impotent. So I just don't see the point.

Pope Joan wrote:Was there actually a jury?

Sometimes these cases are just heard by a judge alone, or a panel of judges.

I am amazed that real human beings would punish one of their own that way, for injuring a bunch of greedy nincompoops like the record czars.

It was a federal jury.

Bears Armed wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Was there actually a jury? Sometimes these cases are just heard by a judge alone, or a panel of judges.

I am amazed that real human beings would punish one of their own that way, for injuring a bunch of greedy nincompoops like the record czars.

Last I heard, judges are "real human beings"...

I practiced law for nine years, and I can assure you they are not.

One of my partners was elected to the bench, which only confirms my point.

My Evidence Professor at Northwestern, Jon Waltz, said the lawyer's greatest friend was the jury, "twelve unemployed septic tank cleaners", precisely because they WERE "real people".