RIAA Hates you and wants to bankrupt you.

[makattak]

What does the fact that the artists contracted with an organization have to do with intellectual property rights?

Either the artists have the rights of property or they don't. If the do, they also have the rights to form contracts around those rights.

Or, is your argument simply that RIAA is a big evil cartel that must be destroyed and so ignoring their rights is ok?

(Incidentally, claiming RIAA is a monopoly or takes monopolistic actions has NOTHING to do with whether they have intellectual property rights. Argue to break up the monopoly, don't argue that it's ok to steal from them).

[Nick1911]

Hmmm... seems y'all are so intent on arguing with each-other, you're missing other posts. Namely, alex_trebek's. Let me quote the important part:

Speaking of which, I thought this was an interesting (and valid) part:

I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works.  If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement?  What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars?  Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.

[Racehorse]

Speaking of which, I thought this was an interesting (and valid) part:

Quote
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works.  If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement?  What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars?  Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.

As did I. I honestly had just never thought about my avatar. On thinking, I realized Mr. Trebek is correct and have changed my avatar to something on which I own the copyright.

[freakazoid]

IMO, the same holds true for a merchant selling apples.  If he is the only guy in town who has apples to sell, you don't get to tell him his price is too high.  He sets the price and you only get to decide how bad you want an apple.  If the market forcing him to drop his price, then it does.  You don't get to steal an apple.

Man, I am really glad no one owns all the water or land. We would be screwed.

"Only when the last tree has died. and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realize we cannot eat money."

So trespassing is only a crime if the property owner can prove you harmed their property in some way?

So is this about trespassing or about seeing a free show? What if your not trespassing into the building? And what sort of trespassing?

DISTRIBUTING flyers with someone else's image on it is not claiming they own it

It creates the assumption that they are either creator or have been given permission to use that image. Although its not like every time someone looks at one they actually put that much thought into the ownership of the picture, but I think you know what I mean.

As did I. I honestly had just never thought about my avatar. On thinking, I realized Mr. Trebek is correct and have changed my avatar to something on which I own the copyright.

Seriously?

[Racehorse]

Seriously?

If I'm to be consistent in my position that it is stealing, and that stealing is wrong, then it of course follows that I should stop using someone else's IP as my avatar without permission.

Or is it more admirable to preach one thing and practice another?

[Strings]

I only pointed that out to demonstrate that a) you're doing absolutely no harm to the artist by "stealing" their music, and b) you're talking about harming a group that has tried to screw over the originators of the IP every chance they get.

[freakazoid]

Or is it more admirable to preach one thing and practice another?

No actually. I think that that is very admiral. I just find it odd that you would actually go that far.

[makattak]

It creates the assumption that they are either creator or have been given permission to use that image. Although its not like every time someone looks at one they actually put that much thought into the ownership of the picture, but I think you know what I mean.

And since you studiously ignored my question, I will ask again:

IF what you say is true about the distributer of a flyer, specifially that they are either the creator or have been given permission to use that image, how is that not also true about someone who is distributing music?

[AZRedhawk44]

OK, the apple parallel makes me think of old 19th century Western ranching laws.

A lot of times, if you bought cattle or horses, you didn't get the right to breed your animals to produce more.  That cost extra, for some reason.

That always struck me as terribly unjust.  I don't know the appeal or legislative history of that particular bit of nonsense, but I believe it was a component of a private contract in most livestock sales.  I'm sure it got contested, appealed and some case law affixed to it at some point.

Any lawyers here have any insight into that aspect?

Breeding new livestock has very similar parallels to the IP concerns here:  It impacts future sales for the same goods for the seller, while it restricts freedom of use of purchased property for the buyer.  The actual act of breeding livestock by the buyer causes no harm to the seller other than potential loss of ethereal anticipated revenue.

[makattak]

OK, the apple parallel makes me think of old 19th century Western ranching laws.

A lot of times, if you bought cattle or horses, you didn't get the right to breed your animals to produce more.  That cost extra, for some reason.

That always struck me as terribly unjust.  I don't know the appeal or legislative history of that particular bit of nonsense, but I believe it was a component of a private contract in most livestock sales.  I'm sure it got contested, appealed and some case law affixed to it at some point.

Any lawyers here have any insight into that aspect?

Breeding new livestock has very similar parallels to the IP concerns here:  It impacts future sales for the same goods for the seller, while it restricts freedom of use of purchased property for the buyer.  The actual act of breeding livestock by the buyer causes no harm to the seller other than potential loss of ethereal anticipated revenue.

Unless of course, these were specifically bred animals. At that point, the work gone into breeding these animals for specific traits are what you are paying for.

I would guess that you get a discount if you have no desire to breed the animals, but if you do wish to breed them, you pay a higher price because you will be getting more benefit from the selective breeding used to create those animals in the first place.

[freakazoid]

how is that not also true about someone who is distributing music?

How could that possibly be true? In the flyer example it is true for the reason I already gave, but when people distribute music they aren't doing it for money, nor is there any attempt to make people think that they are the original creator of the song. There is just no reason to believe that they would be. Why is this even being asked?

Unless of course, these were specifically bred animals. At that point, the work gone into breeding these animals for specific traits are what you are paying for.

I would guess that you get a discount if you have no desire to breed the animals, but if you do wish to breed them, you pay a higher price because you will be getting more benefit from the selective breeding used to create those animals in the first place.

So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.

[Nick1911]

So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.

'greed' is the only reason we have anything beyond rocks and sticks and grass huts.

IOW, the entire motivation anyone has to create anything beyond basic substance is profit potential.

[makattak]

How could that possibly be true? In the flyer example it is true for the reason I already gave, but when people distribute music they aren't doing it for money, nor is there any attempt to make people think that they are the original creator of the song. There is just no reason to believe that they would be. Why is this even being asked?

So, by your example, then, it would be ok for me to steal an image, just so long as I make it clear as I am handing out the flyer that I didn't take the picture and don't own the rights to it?

Because, as long as people know I'm not the author, it's ok for me to use it for my own benefit.

[makattak]

So basically there is a higher price because they can, since they hold a monopoly on the product. It is all about greed.

No, actually, there's a higher price because you are asking for a different product.

Just like, if I bought a Ford F-150 that was the absolute basic and then started screaming because I had to pay more to get one with a towing package, an extended cab, MP3 player and sunroof.

After all, it's only greed that makes that price higher, right?

[freakazoid]

'greed' is the only reason we have anything beyond rocks and sticks and grass huts.

IOW, the entire motivation anyone has to create anything beyond basic substance is profit potential.

No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.

So, by your example, then, it would be ok for me to steal an image, just so long as I make it clear as I am handing out the flyer that I didn't take the picture and don't own the rights to it?

Because, as long as people know I'm not the author, it's ok for me to use it for my own benefit.

Your still making money off of it.

No, actually, there's a higher price because you are asking for a different product.

No, it is the same animal. You are just using it for a different purpose.

Just like, if I bought a Ford F-150 that was the absolute basic and then started screaming because I had to pay more to get one with a towing package, an extended cab, MP3 player and sunroof.

This would make it a different product because it comes with more things, so you pay extra for those.

[makattak]

No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.

That's true. Your society is going to be stuck at bare subsitence, though.

Your still making money off of it.

Are you purposely obtuse?

If I am deriving benefit from something I didn't pay for why does it matter if it is MONETARY benefit?

No, it is the same animal. You are just using it for a different purpose.

Not if I castrate it, it's not.

This would make it a different product because it comes with more things, so you pay extra for those.

Kind of like an animal that does something more....

[Nick1911]

No, it's not. I know it's such a hard concept to grasp, but some people actualy do things for the greater good because they wish to help people.

Sure, there's the open source movement, and people donate time to charities on a regular basis...  But all the major advances of the last 200 years? 

Profit potential.

People are greedy.  Our system is designed to allow them to be greedy and profit off their creations, in exchange for eventually releasing it into the public domain, thus advancing society.  I think it's a good argument, but it really applies to patents more so then copyrights, IMO.

[Brad Johnson]

Guys, might as well give it up. FAZ is going to follow the communist line no matter how much fact and historic precedent you present. The Utopian Dream will be beaten out of him soon enough. Let him live it while he can.

Brad

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i was like that once then i started working for a living and went from as my brother called it "from fighting the man to being the man"

[freakazoid]

Kind of like an animal that does something more....

The animal doesn't do more. It does the exact same thing. You are just using it for different reasons. Unless it is castrated, but then you would treat that the same as any other animal that has been castrated.

Sure, there's the open source movement, and people donate time to charities on a regular basis...  But all the major advances of the last 200 years?

Profit potential.

So do people find cures for diseases for profit or for the greater good of mankind?

People are greedy.

People are greedy because our current society makes them that way.

That's true. Your society is going to be stuck at bare subsitence, though.

Nope.

Are you purposely obtuse?

Nope, just like I know your not. We just come from 2 different beliefs on how things should be.

If I am deriving benefit from something I didn't pay for why does it matter if it is MONETARY benefit?

Because I believe it to be immoral? And yes, I realize that you believe downloading copies of music that you didn't pay for is immoral! But I believe that it is immoral because of the purpose it is being used for. Those are two different benefits.

Guys, might as well give it up. FAZ is going to follow the communist line no matter how much fact and historic precedent you present.

Interesting note, not all communists/socialists/anarchists believe that file sharing is ok. Fact and historic precedent? What?

i was like that once then i started working for a living and went from as my brother called it "from fighting the man to being the man"

Are you seriously suggesting that I don't work for a living!?

[Marvin Dao]

I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works.  If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement?  What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars?  Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.

To continue further, using RIAA logic, this would place damages at $150,000 per infraction.  See here for explanation, I realize I am being a tad facetious.

It's a bit of a legal gray area. The use of copyrighted works as avatars may fall under the fair use exemption, but since the law is vague and there hasn't been a court ruling on the issue, you can't really say either way. There's a decent case to be made for fair use as avatars are personal use, likely transformative (see: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation on how thumbnails of an image are transformative), most often make up a small percentage of the copyrighted work, and have little to no effect on the market for the copyrighted work.

It's an issue that will likely never be settled since the odds of a copyrighted avatar case making it to court is rather low.

While these actions may be legal, it does not make them moral.  The original artists generally do not see much, if any, revenue from album sales.  Merchandise and concerts are their main source of income.  Furthermore, as far as I can tell, no artist has received any of the damages the RIAA has recovered from these private suits. The RIAA has attempted to prevent independent bands from emerging, by suing equipment manufacturers.  They even attempted to block the first portable MP3 players. Basically we are applying free market principles, when no free market exists.

Whether or not artists make any money off of music sales is immaterial. They still sign up with RIAA affiliates in spite of that since the RIAA's marketing machine represents their best shot for moving out of obscurity and into a comfortable lifestyle. Without the RIAA's marketing machine, they wouldn't be making nearly as much money at their concerts or through merchandise sales either.

It's one of the unfortunate facts of the music industry. The intrinsic commercial value of good music pales in comparison to the commercial value added by the RIAA's promotional skills.

[Monkeyleg]

Strings, I don't see how that changes things at all. The company bought the rights to the music from the musicians, just as Michael Jackson had, at least at one time, owned the right to all or nearly all of the Beatles' music.

The company is still the owner of the music, and the company dictates their terms for use of their property. You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.

How is this different than hacking into pay-per-view movies on cable? Is that okay?

Brad Johnson, I don't know that I'd call the view "communist." There are thieves in capitalist societies, too, as is being amply demonstrated.

[Balog]

Fact and historic precedent? What?

The miserable failure of all communist regimes. But wait, I forgot; those weren't real communists! Just ask the guys at RevLeft....  :rolleyes:

Strings, I don't see how that changes things at all. The company bought the rights to the music from the musicians, just as Michael Jackson had, at least at one time, owned the right to all or nearly all of the Beatles' music.

The company is still the owner of the music, and the company dictates their terms for use of their property. You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.

How is this different than hacking into pay-per-view movies on cable? Is that okay?

Brad Johnson, I don't know that I'd call the view "communist." There are thieves in capitalist societies, too, as is being amply demonstrated.

Freak is an avowed anarchist/communist.  :rolleyes:

[freakazoid]

It's a bit of a legal gray area. The use of copyrighted works as avatars may fall under the fair use exemption, but since the law is vague and there hasn't been a court ruling on the issue, you can't really say either way.

If it was ruled to fall under fair use, would it be moral to use it as your avatar? Why or why not.

The miserable failure of all communist regimes. But wait, I forgot; those weren't real communists! Just ask the guys at RevLeft....   

Umm... They weren't, but don't let things like facts get in the way of demonizing communists. But this line of conversation doesn't really have anything to do with the point of this thread.

Freak is an avowed anarchist/communist.   

Yes, yes I am.       

You play by their rules or you find other music to enjoy.

Yes, follow the rules like good robots.

[Balog]

Umm... They weren't, but don't let things like facts get in the way of demonizing communists. But this line of conversation doesn't really have anything to do with the point of this thread.

Every time a communist .gov has been established it's been a bloody oppressive tyranny. You'd think eventually you'd get the idea that maybe communism ain't such a great idea, instead of trying to justify it and explain it away.