Advertisement
by Exilia and Colonies » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:52 am
by Heinleinites » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:55 am
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.
by Triniteras » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:04 am
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.
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!
by Vault 10 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:06 am
Heinleinites wrote:Yes and yes to your questions. But I'm not a bit of a free-marketer, I'm the free-marketer
Heinleinites wrote:But in the end, when you strip all the facile rationalizations off it, you are stealing something from somebody else
by Kamsaki » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:19 am
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.
by Heinleinites » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:23 am
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.
by Wiztopia » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:29 am
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.
by Sibirsky » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:47 am
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.
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:54 am
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.
by Vault 10 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:07 am
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.
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.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:09 am
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.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Robarya » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:38 am
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:28 am
by Deschenek » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:52 am
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:11 am
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.
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.
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.
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:12 am
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*
by Bears Armed » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:27 am
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.
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.
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...Maurepas wrote:Especially when no one feels any attack of conscience when downloading music...
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...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.
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: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.
The_pantless_hero wrote:Charging individuals making minimum wage completely absurd punitive damages like this is ridiculous.
by Robarya » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:47 am
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!
by BunnySaurus Bugsii » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:59 am
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.
by Pope Joan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:10 am
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:11 am
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!
by Bears Armed » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:18 am
Last I heard, judges are "real human beings"...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.
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:18 am
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.
by Sdaeriji » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:19 am
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.
by Pope Joan » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:22 am
Bears Armed wrote:Last I heard, judges are "real human beings"...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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ask Jeeves [Bot], Bombadil, Emotional Support Crocodile, Keltionialang, Mergold-Aurlia, Republics of the Solar Union, Singaporen Empire
Advertisement