RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.

[zahc]

There's a difference between tangible goods and intangible intellectual property.  Directly comparing the two will lead to faulty logic. One of them exists, and the other is imaginary make-believe property.

It actually reminds me of carbon credits.

[Jamisjockey]

We're walking parallel courses here.  On  page 4

This is what ticks me off about write protections and the like.

I am all for people who produce a product getting paid for it, they made it, they produced and distributed it.  However at the same time, customers should be able to make backup copies so long as they are not distributed IMO.

I thought they were referring to hard copies of software (games, etc).

With Itunes you can back up your stuff to disc, IIRC.  So you pay your $.99 for a license to use the song, but not distribute it freely.  

There's a difference between tangible goods and intangible intellectual property.  Directly comparing the two will lead to faulty logic. One of them exists, and the other is imaginary make-believe property.

It actually reminds me of carbon credits.

Tell that to someone who makes their living selling music, and then has it spread freely around. 

[Balog]

RIAA is definitely their own worst enemy here. IP is not directly analogous to physical property, but theft is also not about causing harm to others.

The arguments remind me of the people in Britain who say property owners shouldn't be able to prevent access to their property as long as no harm is done by the trespasser.

I also agree with the damage needing to be proved instead of just handed out willy nilly, and with the consumers right to duplicate their information, as long as it is not distributed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oy.  Why is it so hard for so many people to understand that non-tangible goods have value just like tangible goods?

Nobody seems to be confused by the fact that stealing someone else's tangible whatsit is stealing.  Why is it that once the whatsit becomes non-tangible we see so many people willing to rationalize its theft?

I see this confusion in discussions of economics, too.  Nobody is confused by the notion that producing a physical item creates value.  Yet somehow people get confused by the notion that producing intellectual items also creates value.

I really don't get it.  Labor can result in both physical products and intellectial/nontangible products.  The two types of products aren't different in any meaningful way when it comes to ownership.  He who produced it gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor, anyone else may only use it with the permission of the owner.

Maybe the problem is that music doesn't come with an end user license the way software does.  If the RIAA were to explicitly state just what rights the customer is buying when he pays for his CD, then perhaps a lot of this confusion could be avoided.

[S. Williamson]

Solution: Make the music free of charge from the very beginning. 

At worst, treat it like the advertising it is--the more of it that gets spread around, the more fans, publicity, etc. you gain.  Charge for merchandise, concessions, and ticket sales, which is where the real money is anyway.

Meh. IMO, Tangible goods and intangible intellectual property don't compare well.  Apples to oranges.

More like apples to apple pie recipes.

Now that the internet, the greatest method of sharing and transferring ideas ever invented in the history of the world, exists, intellectual property as it once was cannot be valued in the same way.  Magazine sales are dying.  Newspaper sales are dying.  CD sales are dying.  Encyclopedia sales are dying.  Even television is dying.  Various other book sales, too--everything from recipes to religious writings to government publications can be found online.  People are listening to the radio less and less, and it's all because it can be accessed via a means where everyone can share everything intangible, for free.

It's a bleak point, but the only thing to really be gained anymore is a feeling of satisfaction that you've helped humanity in some way, since you sure aren't going to get rich off of it.

[Nick1911]

I really don't get it.  Labor can result in both physical products and intellectial/nontangible products.  The two types of products aren't different in any meaningful way when it comes to ownership.  He who produced it gets to enjoy the fruits of his labor, anyone else may only use it with the permission of the owner.

Yes, they are.

I could loan or give you my car.  No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.

If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft.  Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?

Maybe the problem is that music doesn't come with an end user license the way software does.  If the RIAA were to explicitly state just what rights the customer is buying when he pays for his CD, then perhaps a lot of this confusion could be avoided.

Probably, yes.  You're not buying music, per say, you're buying a contract to use it.

[Racehorse]

Yes, they are.

I could loan or give you my car.  No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.

If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft.  Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?


Probably, yes.  You're not buying music, per say, you're buying a contract to use it.

This is a bad analogy. If you gave him your copy of Windows without keeping another copy, it wouldn't be theft.

The issue is that you're talking about giving him a copy while keeping your copy. Microsoft would have sold two units of Windows rather than just one if you had not made a copy.

How is that any different than a car? It's like loaning or giving your car to a friend and then stealing one from the dealership to replace the one you gave away.

[AZRedhawk44]

I could loan or give you my car.  No one would call that theft from Ford Motor Company.

If I gave you a copy of Windows, that's theft.  Why is that, if the products aren't different in any meaningful way?

With the car, you lose use of it when I take possession of it.

With a copy of Windows, you don't lose use of it.  How would you feel, however, if the second I was done installing and I registered online, your computer suddenly stopped working since I was using your copy? 

You would be in trouble if you reversed engineered some nifty trademarked engineering feature of the Ford car and made copies of it for resale, however.

[Nick1911]

With the car, you lose use of it when I take possession of it.

With a copy of Windows, you don't lose use of it.  How would you feel, however, if the second I was done installing and I registered online, your computer suddenly stopped working since I was using your copy? 

You would be in trouble if you reversed engineered some nifty trademarked engineering feature of the Ford car and made copies of it for resale, however.

That's the point, though.

The two types of property are different.

Different rules apply, because 'theft' implies denying the owner of use.

[Racehorse]

That's the point, though.

The two types of property are different.

Different rules apply, because 'theft' implies denying the owner of use.

No, theft implies taking something without permission. You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.

It's not different.

[Nick1911]

No, theft implies taking something without permission. You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.

It's not different.

So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?

And how is that not different from the sale of pretty much every physical product ever made, where I buy the actual device and I become the owner?

[Monkeyleg]

There's two types of awards in civil lawsuits, including copyright lawsuits. One is an award for actual costs, the is punitive.

If someone uses a photo of mine without my permission, I can go after the person and recover the usual and customary amounts the person would have paid to use the image as he did. If I've filed the image with the copyright office, I can also pursue punitive damages that can far exceed the customary usage amounts. It's like getting 30 days in jail for stealing a $10 CD. Your time is probably worth more than $.33 a day, but that's the penalty.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on the concept that they're buying the music when they buy the CD. The CD isn't the intellectual property, it's the medium on which that property is recorded, just as paper is the medium on which a book is printed, but the paper is not the intellectual property.

So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?

No, that's not an argument, that's the law.

[Racehorse]

So your argument is that the record company\artist remains the owner, and I buy license to listen to some work?

And how is that not different from the sale of pretty much every physical product ever made, where I buy the actual device and I become the owner?

Actually, no. That was not the argument I made.

[De Selby]

There's two types of awards in civil lawsuits, including copyright lawsuits. One is an award for actual costs, the is punitive.

If someone uses a photo of mine without my permission, I can go after the person and recover the usual and customary amounts the person would have paid to use the image as he did. If I've filed the image with the copyright office, I can also pursue punitive damages that can far exceed the customary usage amounts. It's like getting 30 days in jail for stealing a $10 CD. Your time is probably worth more than $.33 a day, but that's the penalty.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on the concept that they're buying the music when they buy the CD. The CD isn't the intellectual property, it's the medium on which that property is recorded, just as paper is the medium on which a book is printed, but the paper is not the intellectual property.

No, that's not an argument, that's the law.

There's no question that it has value - but in any other civil case, you have to prove the value of the lost property/damages resulting from the wrongful activity in order to be compensated.  Why not apply the same rule in these cases?

Punitive damages have constitutional limits that clearly are not applied in this case - these are statutory damages.  They are given because congress said so, not for deterrence.  And even in a punitive damages claim, you still have to prove actual damages so that the punitive damages can be computed accordingly.

I can see the need to enforce the right of ownership, but I can't see why it should have such disproportionately generous cash payouts compared to any other property right.

[Nick1911]

Actually, no. That was not the argument I made.

Then what was your argument?  Because that's what I got out of it.

Lets clarify:

No, theft implies taking something without permission.

I was going off the English Common Law definition, but we'll use your model for the sake of argument.  What is being taken?  Whom is it being taken from?

You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.

Is this the theft?  So [revenue ] is stolen from [copyright owner] without permission?

It's not different.

How is it the same?

On the title of my 98 Mustang, it clearly lists my name next to "Owner:".  I am free to do as I wish with MY property.  I can take it apart, I can reverse engineer it, I can build aftermarket parts for it, I can sell it, I can light it on fire, I can do whatever I want with it.

On an MP3, the copyright holder is the owner.  They retain the rights to that property, and I'm licensed to use it.   How is that the same?

No, that's not an argument, that's the law.

Okay!

So can we agree that intellectual property isn't the same as real property which the purchaser actually owns?

[lupinus]

You're also depriving the copyright owner of the revenue that would be made if they had sold that additional copy.

Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.

[Monkeyleg]

There's no question that it has value - but in any other civil case, you have to prove the value of the lost property/damages resulting from the wrongful activity in order to be compensated.  Why not apply the same rule in these cases?

The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by  published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I spent decades trying to explain it to advertising professionals  who were paying for a photo shoot, and they either didn't get it or they were just pretending not to get it. If they were willing to pay me the full value for them to own all rights (which they sometimes did), we had a deal. If not, then they either went somewhere else or we reached a compromise agreement.

Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.

YOUR JEEP IS NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!!!!

Sheesh.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Going by that line of thinking if I scratch my cars paint I should have to buy a whole new one, otherwise I would be depriving Jeep a new sale by copying their original paint job.

A better analogy would be reverse engineering the Jeep and selling your own versions.  What you bought from Jeep was a hunk of metal and fabric and rubber and so forth, not the designs and plans on how it's made, and definitely not the right to produce and redistribute your own Jeeps.

When you steal IP, what you're stealing is the right to use the IP.  Who uses the IP is a decision the owner gets to make.  Many owners opt to sell the rights to use a particular product, not the product itself.

It's really no different from a landlord leasing out an apartment to tenants.  The landlord is selling the rights to use the apartment for a certain period of time without selling the apartment itself.  Squatting, using the property without purchasing the rights, is a form of theft not fundamentally different from stealing IP.

If you use it without permission, you're stealing.

[lupinus]

A better analogy would be reverse engineering the Jeep and selling your own versions.  What you bought from Jeep was a hunk of metal and fabric and rubber and so forth, not the designs and plans on how it's made, and definitely not the right to produce and redistribute your own Jeeps.

When you steal IP, what you're stealing is the right to use the IP.  Who uses the IP is a decision the owner gets to make.  Many owners opt to sell the rights to use a particular product, not the product itself.

It's really no different from a landlord leasing out an apartment to tenants.  The landlord is selling the rights to use the apartment for a certain period of time without selling the apartment itself.  Squatting, using the property without purchasing the rights, is a form of theft not fundamentally different from stealing IP.

If you use it without permission, you're stealing.

And when you have bought your vehicle and take measures to ensure it is available for your use as long as possible?

Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.

[Balog]

Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.

I don't think we're arguing that it is. This discussion isn't about people making backup copies, it's about people redistributing.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And when you have bought your vehicle and take measures to ensure it is available for your use as long as possible?

Buying and copying something is no different provided you do not turn around and sell or distribute it.

The correct analogy is buying a CD and keeping it clean and scratch-free so that you get the most use out of it.  Copying it isn't the same.  Copying the CD would be like doing the Chinese thing and reverse engineering the Jeep to make your own versions.  You don't get to copy your Jeep whenever it's about to wear out so that you never need to buy a new one. 

I suppose it all depends upon just what rights to the IP you acquire when you buy a CD.  I bet the record companies would say that all you get with your CD is the shiny silver disc and the right to play the music for yourself.  Therefore, any use of the IP other than playing it for yourself amounts to theft.  Making copies of it, even for yourself for backup purposes, would be theft.

Ultimately their IP is theirs to do with as they please, to sell as much rights to it or as little rights to it as they wish.  So long as everyone is clear on just what is being bought and sold, then I see no problems.

[De Selby]

The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by  published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but I spent decades trying to explain it to advertising professionals  who were paying for a photo shoot, and they either didn't get it or they were just pretending not to get it. If they were willing to pay me the full value for them to own all rights (which they sometimes did), we had a deal. If not, then they either went somewhere else or we reached a compromise agreement.

YOUR JEEP IS NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!!!!

Sheesh.

There's nothing at all wrong with that - but the statutory damages in this case are likely exponentially larger than what the damages would be if you had to prove them in court.

Why not require copyright owners to do a calculation like you just did when suing for damages, as is the case for nearly every other kind of civil action?

[Seenterman]

The value of the intellectual property that was wrongfully used would be determined, in the case of photography, by  published industry standards for copyright usage. If the image was wrongfully used for a flyer for a nightclub (which happened to a fellow photographer I know), the damages came to a couple of hundred dollars. If the image were to be used in a magazine such as GQ, the damages would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

That makes sense; but it how can you calculate almost 2 million in damages from a private user not a corporate entity? If someone had illegally copied 24 of your photos and posted them on a website where they could be downloaded by anyone else, how much in damages is that really worth?

I understand a punitive fine to deter other people from illegally copying IP but shouldn't the fines be within reason.

In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

According to wiki, and for the same of arguement lets say that this woman makes $60,000 a year(after taxes of course  ), if she forked over her entire paycheck each month it would take her 32 years to pay the RIAA.

Does that make sense to anyone! The RIAA some how bought its way into being able to use the court system as its strong arm. Now we have to deal with their mentality of buy from us or we will bankrupt you or just rob $2000 from a 12 year old girl.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/

[Monkeyleg]

An individual is no more or less responsible than a corporation.

If someone had illegally copied 24 of your photos and posted them on a website where they could be downloaded by anyone else, how much in damages is that really worth?

I just did a quick search on some court cases involving copyright violations with photographs. In one case the photographer was awarded $500,000 in statutory damages, while the compensatory damages were $12,800. That's 39x the determined value of the use of the photos.

According to wiki, and for the same of arguement lets say that this woman makes $60,000 a year(after taxes of course  ), if she forked over her entire paycheck each month it would take her 32 years to pay the RIAA.

If our judicial system based punishment on the incomes of criminals, only rich people would be executed. Why do I get the sense that some here would like that arrangement?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

she uploaded 1700 tunes