RIAA: ripping your own cd's to mp3's = STEALING!

[tcsenter]

The logical conclusion of your post tcsenter is that all countries are slaves to outdated definitions. The U.S. Constitution (by the way: which part of 1:8 do you have in mind), which finally was ratified more than 200 years ago, consists of guiding fundamental principles, a framework for laws. Hence a principle which express fundamental human values shouldn't be changed, but laws might be changed if becoming irrelevant or obsolete. Unfortunately our society tend to focus solely on laws, while not grasping the principles behind them, hence the race in finding loopholes.

Err...clearly you are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which is more accurately characterized as consisting of 'guiding principles which express fundamental human values'. The Declaration is a political document, and a truly grand one at that, but it is not a legal document or charter like the US Constitution. Big difference.

 

I'm not sure why I have decided to continue engaging someone who doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, it will probably prove to be a foolish endeavor on my part, but here goes...

 

"THE LAW supports RIAA's argument" put some words on the pedestal of infallible deities.

No, it puts some words on the pedestal of simple observation. The legislative branch makes the law, the judicial branch interprets and applies the law, and the executive branch enforces the law. 8th grade civics here.

 

The law supports RIAA, not because RIAA has a catchy ring to it, but because that's what Congress and the framers of our constitution enacted as a matter of LAW. And I would note they did so well before there was any RIAA. The law will always be on the side of one party and against the side of another party. It just happens to be on RIAA's here. You don't have to like it, nor am I asking you to.

 

The law of any country isn't perfect, it's nothing more than an expression of limited human understanding at a specific time. A society has to use all its thinking faculties and be humble enough to understand when something is outdated and in need of revision.

That's why we have the democratic process and the legislature, to change laws if the people want them changed. Democracy is an exercise of rule by representative majority (subject to constitutional restraints). If you are in the distinct minority, that's the way the ball bounces (again, subject to constitutional restraints).

 

I'm in a distinct minority on a couple issues, I don't go crying about how the Constitution is out-dated and needs to be changed. I deal with it like an adult, by acknowledging that my needs and wants are not at the center of the universe, around which everything should revolve. The mature adult world is about the recognition that society is a balance of interests, many different interests. Sometimes those interests clash and sometimes you aren't going to get your way. Boo hoo, that's life.

 

Furthermore the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do: the whole patent system is outdated and does limit development of inventions, and might even fatally damage U.S. progress in the future. It's ridiculous to have copyright laws that actually make it profitable to run companies based on one business idea: manhunt inventions with "poor" copyright protection and destroy them. Do you want new firms with bright ideas to establish themselves in the U.S.? If yes, you need to make the environment more invention-friendly, making it possible to take risks without using 90 % of the resources to watch your back.

lol! According to your reasoning, those countries with lax copyright enforcement, thus promoting all this innovation and creativity, should be producing gobs of desirable works that a country with strict copyright enforcement is not able to because of the harm to innovation and creativity. And yet the exact opposite is true and has been for not less than one-half century of unrivaled American innovation in most segments including software, computers, biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, music, film, literature, and television, but lets just stick to films, television, and music.

 

The world is practically addicted to pirating and bootlegging American and British films, television, and music, and the very worst offenders are those countries with the copyright laws you would have foisted upon us. The countries with lax copyright enforcement do not produce a damned thing that anyone would want to pirate or download. What do they care if their citizens are casually pirating music, its not their artists being harmed! It is American and British works that account for the overwhelming majority of content being pirated globally, primarily American.

 

Isn't it positively interesting that what we should find according to your reasoning is in fact the opposite of what we do find? Got a convenient rationale to explain this away? I bet you do, can't wait to hear this whopper.

 

The music industry is just one example of a bigger problem. And if you think so well of RIAA: why do they meddle in the affairs of other countries? What law or constitution give them such rights?

We have international treaties, trade agreements, laws, regulations, and conventions that allow RIAA to meddle in the affairs of other countries, when those countries have agreed to abide by all such applicable treaties, agreements, laws, regulations, and conventions. If those countries want to import copyrighted works by artists and labels who are represented by RIAA, they have to address RIAA's concerns in good faith. When they do not, RIAA can access their courts, just like foreign parties can and frequently do access our courts. Its a two-way street.

 

Does the constitution encourage fraud? Why do more and more musicians act against RIAA?

I don't know there are any more musicians acting against RIAA than there has always been but are just getting more attention for it today. Who are all these musicians acting against RIAA, what percentage of all recording artists do they represent, and how has that changed from, say, 10 years...20 years ago?

 

Follow the money and realize who's interest they serve.

I know who's interest they serve, I live in California. I've seen the homes of numerous musicians, producers, managers, the accessories in their drive way, and the big iron gates keeping all us little people out. I'm also well aware of the hundreds upon hundreds of formerly famous musicians whose shirts could truthfully read: "I signed a recording contract with RIAA, toured the world, became famous, had lots of . with groupies, made X million dollars in five years, and all I have to show for it is this lowsy T-Shirt (and a hole in my nasal septum from putting that X million dollars up my nose)." e.g. think M.C. Hammer and the hundreds of other stories just like his, though perhaps not as egregious or extreme.

 

If it's all about laws, why have the history seen so many mistreated musicians and artists?

The same reason history has seen so many mistreated peoples of any other type and kind. There are bad people in the world, and sometimes they take advantage of other people. You seriously did not have this explained to you around the age that everyone else gets the 'bad people' speech (i.e. like five or six years old)? Please don't ask me where babies come from and why people have to die.

 

Musicians and artists are no more mistreated than anyone else, and judging by the number of them who are filthy rich, or were before they blew it all on decadent lifestyles and extremely expensive drug addictions, they are probably mistreated a lot less than most everyone else.

 

Artists have lawyers and managers who are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to represent and protect the best interests of the artist in their dealings with record labels. If they wanted your 'help' in protecting their interests vis-a-vis the record labels, they would ask you for it. 95% of artists are asking you to buy their albums, not steal from them, so we can finally put to rest the self-serving PACK OF LIES that anyone is 'helping' the artist by stealing their music.

 

Artists want to sign recording contracts with RIAA and do so enthusiastically, because nowhere else on earth will they find someone willing to bankroll their music career and the artist doesn't have to pay the money back.

 

That's right. If the artist's album is a flop, they don't have to pay the money back. RIAA isn't going to sue them, put a lien on their Winnebago, or sell the debt to a collections agency. They just absorb the loss and shift it to the profitable artists. The artist had $250,000 to $500,000 spent for their benefit, to promote their music and name to the world, and they don't freaking have to pay the money back!

 

Of course artists are enthusiastically signing the contract - who wouldn't! Its win-win for the artist no matter what. And THAT is why people keep making the same predictions year after year, decade after decade, that never seem to come true about artists 'rebelling' against the record labels. Rebelling in favor of what? Coming up with the quarter to half million dollars on their own? Borrowing it from sources that WILL make them pay it back whether or not the album is successful? Navigating the treacherous waters of music promotion with no 'big league' support?

 

RIGHT! This is the equivalent of believing that actors and directors are going to start rebelling against the majors and will start making their own little films on You Tube. Sure, on some very limited and virtually insignificant scale, but it will always be a true exception to the rule. Even Michael Moore - the self-proclaimed 'Champion of the Little Man' - has been cutting deals for years with big film distribution companies and movie studios. Not the majors, per se, but 'right-below-the-majors', real corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, who are in fact in bed with the majors. And he brags about how he lives in the exclusive gated communities right along with the corporate executives that he villifies. He's really proud of that (being filthy rich, that is).

 

So maybe you can make a name for yourself, generate some interest in your stuff, but sooner or later (like Micheal Moore), you're gonna come to the feeding trough like everyone else. Or not, and you'll die broke, taking comfort in knowing that you stuck to your principles, because nobody else will know who you are except your mom and some guy who lives in a van down by the river. If artists truly just 'wanted to play music', they can do that on the street. Heck, they don't even have to leave the house. They can position some stuffed animals on the couch and play for them. Mission accomplished!

 

But we know that is NOT all they want in life, artistically or otherwise. The artist is every bit as greedy as the corporate CEO. The artist's ego and need for validation is much greater than some Namby-Pamby emotional statement about principles and integrity and those other things people love to talk about until their big break comes. They want their works to be appreciated, NOT by their mom and some guy who lives in a van down by the river, but by MILLIONS! And that costs money - lots of money.

 

Show me an artist who commands one million fans and earns the 'modest but comfortable' living they all claim would satisfy them. You can't do it, because such an animal doesn't exist. Once they get the fans, they start to develop this mysterious feeling that they also justly deserve to be compensated for all the 'greatness' they are sharing with the world - VERY WELL compensated.

[KimTjik]

Fed up or not, Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, did actually utter those statements. Tactically a disaster for RIAA's case, but interesting in that it reveals views shared by some of its representatives. So we have enough circumstantial evidence to realize the threat posed by RIAA and what some of them would wish to come true. Nasty copy-protection mechanisms, Internet Radio in the U.S. being economically threatened, meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states and so on speaks for itself.

 

The problem for RIAA is as ExRodie pointed out the the "fair use doctrine", which would force RIAA to some ludicrous actions if they ever decided to challenge it. In a sense RIAA is trapped. That can't be a proof of RIAA serving both the musicians and the publics interest, can it? To not be misinformed, if ever truly possible, demands more than the testimony of two fighting parties.

[charlie22911]

I agree with the RIAA, how could anyone rip those cute plastic disks? all they ever did to you was give the gift of music! how would you like someone to rip you and give your favorite parts to other people? i believe i am speaking for a pretty large percentage of the population when i say this, but the RIAA is a group of good people, and i would vote them for president if i could... shame on you all :mad:.

[Devil 07]

the RIAA is a group of good people

 

can I have some of your kool-aide?:shake:

[KimTjik]

Err...clearly you are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence...

Not really. What you have to do is to look at law in a broader context. The U.S. isn't the universal answer to any these issues, it's just one party with huge influence, even if diminishing. You're also misinterpreting some of my thoughts.

 

If you forget about the patronizing references to 8 grade civics - why should your schooling system bother me anyway as a citizen of another country - you should have attended other lectures as well which dealt with philosophical definitions of principles and laws. That's the kind of definitions I was talking about. I'm not talking about some political document, in this case the Declaration of Independence, which has a very limited and specific purpose and doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.

 

You did refer to the Constitution as an argument, not me, and I didn't say anywhere that the constitution is in need of change, thus you're making an argument about something irrelevant. I was talking about interpretations and legislated laws. Why choose a petitio principii?

 

Still you acknowledge that certain changes to the law would be preferable by a democratic process. Did you think I had something else in mind? That I meant a bloody coup d`état or something? Why then be so upset and rumble about how you're practically wasting your time on someone who doesn't understand the basics? You yourself say that there's a need for change, and I said the same, though we have different views on the current state of affairs.

 

Sometimes those interests clash and sometimes you aren't going to get your way. Boo hoo, that's life.

It's not in the American spirit to give up, is it? Furthermore some changes take time. Indirectly I and directly my friends life are protected by some 50 specific cases won in the Supreme Court over a period of 100 years. That's the spirit of someone not resigning to a attitude of "boo hoo I'm so unhappy"!

 

Some of your observations about the music industry is shared by me as well (I think you assumed too much when writing a response; see the "loudness war" thread), thus I don't feel any urge to comment much. Nevertheless some of the brightest talents were ripped off, and hence live very modest today. Many of the artists you refer to don't make their main profit on records sales anyway. These extremely rich persons wouldn't do less good if laws were adjusted the way some of us want, instead it would strengthen the less commercialized artists (they exist as you know) and that's very important.

 

That piracy and bootleg part isn't either for me. I don't have a single illegally downloaded piece of music in any of my computers, despite a fiber optic connection . So this is another wrong assumption. If you're interested in software development, then you should understand why the patent system of the U.S. need to change. Europe is a safe haven, not because it encourage pirating, but because it has modernized its views on what fairly can be patented. How about the U.S.? I don't know, even though I think it will be forced to eventually progress, but it has sometimes a lot more complicated road to go in view of aggressive lobbying.

[schoolslave]

Ummm...the US Constitution is the "Guidelines" NOT the Declaration of Independence.

That's why it can be amended. It was written by the Fathers of the US and they created it in a way so that it can be changed to adjust to changing times and needs.

The Declaration is just the US's official statement of freedom from British rule.

 

I think someone needs to revisit 8th grade American Studies......

[red930]

I'm pretty sure this thread has run it's course.

[dr_bowtie]

I am totally surprised it lated that long...good call TDV