Fun Stuff > BAND

RIAA Wins $1.92 Million In File-Sharing Lawsuit

<< < (8/14) > >>

fish across face:
Hang on, I don't think this is self-evident at all.


--- Quote from: E. Spaceman on 21 Jun 2009, 14:59 ---Just to illustrate it a little bit further.

Imagine these two scenarios:

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

2) I steal a CD or vinyl froim a store.


Would you say these two are equivalent?


--- End quote ---

No, I don't think those are equivalent.  

How about these two?

1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.

2) I download a music album to my computer.  I would have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, a sale is lost.


What I was asking Tommy for evidence of is that 1) is occurring, not 2).

Just in case this goes astray, I'd like to make it very very clear lest things go astray I don't agree with punishing people for downloading music.

Radical AC:
According to some people/entities(RIAA) both are breaking the law the same as running over the homeless.

There is a tangibility issue to some extent with owning a vinyl as opposed to sound files, not just a particle/matter transfer issue.  I can use my CD to put the album on as many of my computers as I want, but I can't use a legal program such as bittorrent to get it off the net?  I've spent money seeing bands, and buying merch for acts I either wouldn't have even heard of, or wouldn't have bothered with had I not heard their music for free on a recommendation.  I think the biggest problem is with the current copyright system that needs a modern overhaul.  Unfortunately there is no pressing push for reform, and it would be opposed by all the wrong, and powerful lobbying groups.

Thrillho:

--- Quote from: E. Spaceman on 21 Jun 2009, 14:59 ---1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.
--- End quote ---

No sale would be lost if you stole it from a store because the chain stores buy them off the label. Once the units are in stores, the money's already gone to the label.

Whether or not it is in physical is not irrelevant per se, but it is being a stickler for details that don't really matter. It's semantics.

I agree that the RIAA are dickheads, and that the crime people are being charged with is not strictly speaking the one they should be.

However, if a band has chosen to sell their music in a physical form, and not put it out for free on the internet, then if you download it instead, that is you being a dick, because if it was their choice to charge people to listen to it, then you should either pay for it or not listen to it. They have not chosen to put their music on the net, it is illegally copied, and whatever crime it may be semantically, it's still some sort of crime even if I can't construct what it is.

There's not really an equivalent situation that I can use as an example, because there's not really anything like it.

Also, I would argue that buying a pirate CD is worse, because not only are you not buying the CD from the artist who made it and giving that money or whatever, you're giving someone ELSE the money, which is ridiculous. I mean, how much of an asshole do you have to be to instead of giving your money to the artist whose music you like, but to a criminal instead. Where's the moral high ground in that?

...You know, aside from the one I'm standing on. Or rather, that my high horse is standing.

gospel:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html

fish across face:
Quite a bit of research in the intervening 5 years contradicts that.  Certainly not all of it, and there are millions of different questions not being addressed and things to mull over, I reckon.

Here's a paper from this year by one of the same bods.  Table 5 near the back has a summary of some findings.  There's all kinds of murkiness.  The tenor of their paper is, unsurprisingly, positive for big name acts.


--- Quote from: DynamiteKid on 21 Jun 2009, 15:35 ---However, if a band has chosen to sell their music in a physical form, and not put it out for free on the internet, then if you download it instead, that is you being a dick, because if it was their choice to charge people to listen to it, then you should either pay for it or not listen to it. They have not chosen to put their music on the net, it is illegally copied, and whatever crime it may be semantically, it's still some sort of crime even if I can't construct what it is.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, basically this is me, as I guess I already said.  Except the "illegally" bit - it being a "crime" - is not really what I think or care about.  It just seems ungrateful... churlish?  Heh, churlish is a pretty cool word.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page