Fun Stuff > BAND

RIAA Wins $1.92 Million In File-Sharing Lawsuit

<< < (13/14) > >>

Sox:


It already happened to porn, it's now gonna happen to other kinds of media as well.

Patrick:
Not exactly parallel cases, man, the overwhelming majority of internet porn is complete shit. I don't want music to run the same course.

Nodaisho:
The overwhelming majority of music is already shit, we just have a harder time finding most of it. At least, unless you go on myspace.

Chesire Cat:
I totally came in here with the intent of my first post in months to bring up the visual art connection. Looking at an image of visual art is akin to listening to an MP3. But anyway that point was already made, so I will move on to my next one.

This topic is originally about illegality and money. So lets target the illegality first, having a third-party bureaucracy sue on behalf of artists is indefensible. And convicting very few people for something as common as jay-walking (which is also ineffectually illegal) is pointless.

Next up, money. These people being sued on behalf of are artists. Art is a hobby, it happens to be a hobby you can make money out of but it shouldn't be the primary motivation. Its a hobby that often very much forms a lifestyle, that lifestyle should revolve around performing their performance art. It seems at some point a businessman discovered it was profitable to sell recorded imitations of a performance art and started a record label, somewhere along the lines it became not only accepted, but expected that people can and will pay for these recorded imitations of a performance art. Now we the people have decided that since we dont have to pay for these recorded imitations of art, so we wont pay for them.

That being said, we are still able to go watch shows, and if we want a collection (collecting is also a hobby) of said art, we can still by the vinyl or CDs. The delivering of music is facing a sea-change, and the law and the RIAA enforcing it are going to have to adapt, because they simply cant sue there way through it.

And no side has really bothered to take a stance on other parties playing their music collections for other people. Since this whole argument revolves around the fact that the music is intangible, what about people who listen to music at clubs? If a DJ is getting paid to play other peoples music, is the only distinction being the listeners dont get to choose what they hear? So does that make the act of choosing what you are listening to/playing the determining factor on whether or not you should pay for it? Not the act of possession or actual listening?

Bottom line is, as much as I respect DynamiteKid's opinions on this, it has to be Tommy whose opinions I back.

pwhodges:

--- Quote from: Chesire Cat on 28 Jun 2009, 12:14 ---And no side has really bothered to take a stance on other parties playing their music collections for other people.
--- End quote ---

Really? (I don't know what the US equivalent would be, if any.)

Note that the free use of music at home is (the way I read it) a discretionary exemption. 

Offices where music from a radio, for instance, is audible are expected to have licences, and these are chased up to some extent.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page