RIAA attacks internet radio

[geni]

You are one of those individuals who will support anything that have the label "legal" on it.

Not at all but I do understand that respect for property rights is one of the more important factors in keeping a civilisation stable.

 

[geni]

Just move the servers outside of the US and boardcast elsewhere, is my answer. If the station is at all profitable it would be worth the trouble.

That would involve finding a country that is not a signitory to various international copyright conventions.

So how were you planning to host this station playing music in Iran?

 

[geni]

Not to digress too much, but the saddest thing is all this is that music to a larger and larger extent has become about the "packaging" and the "show," not the music itself. Tragic.

Hybridisation of different forms of entertianment is very old.

Perhaps you complain that Sullivan's work was devalued by his colaberations with Gilbert.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not at all but I do understand that respect for property rights is one of the more important factors in keeping a civilisation stable.

But this begs the question. Are current laws really "keeping the civilization stable"?

Highly debatable. Of course, the answer, to an extent, its subjective in nature, as we would have to deal with what we mean by "stable" for instance, but the point here is that blindly following the laws and the rules does not guarantee anything but the continuation of conventionalisms. This hardly reflects what makes a society to change and improve: Irreverent individuals.

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Did you know that it is sane to question the authority from time to time?

 

[bigred]

Laws are made by minorities in power, but in the end they are merely opinions.

I think "guidelines" is more accurat then "opinions" but good point.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Did you know that it is sane to question the authority from time to time?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We do not need music from RIAA record labels.

In a democracy, we can vote out a ruling party if they no longer represent our ideals.
In a free market society, we vote with our wallets. If people hate the RIAA so much, the best thing they could do is to stop giving them money.

If you complain about Microsoft as you buy the latest copy of Windows, you are a hypocrite.
If you complain about the RIAA as you buy or steal one of their record label's albums, you are a hypocrite.

 

[bigred]

If you complain about Microsoft as you buy the latest copy of Windows, you are a hypocrite.
If you complain about the RIAA as you buy or steal one of their record label's albums, you are a hypocrite.

? Sorry, no.

hypocrite
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

If you buy Windows and talk about how great it is but secretly or elsewhere rip on it, or if you think it's great but say it's not, THAT would be hypocritical. But if you buy it - and there are many reasons other than you like it to buy it - and criticize it, that is not necessarily hypocritical by any means.

Back to RIAA: if your fav artists record on an RIAA owned (or regulated or whatever) label, you can hate RIAA but still buy it and not be a hypocrite.

Or you can download stuff for free to avoid it altogether.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Back to RIAA: if your fav artists record on an RIAA owned (or regulated or whatever) label, you can hate RIAA but still buy it and not be a hypocrite.

Or you can download stuff for free to avoid it altogether.

So you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how badly you want to get rid of the RIAA, while you continue to support them thereby helping them to stay in business?
Or you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how the RIAA is ripping you off, while you rip them off?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think "guidelines" is more accurat then "opinions" but good point.

Guidelines, I like that. Yes, exactly, laws are merely guidelines to show the bulk of the people what is "right" and "wrong" in the eyes of the ones in power. Is it ok to bend them? to change them?

It depends on who does it. The little law breaker goes to jail, the big one changes the law.

 

[Ryokan]

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization?

Hi there Ryokan. Well, there is also the queen. But my point remains.

 

[bigred]

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization?

Now or in general? Funny I was just replying to a thread that sidetracked about their atrocities during WW II, which easily rivalled the Germans' or Russians'....

 

[PixyMisa]

Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists".

Minor correction: Technological advances have made their business model irrelevant. The reason that the RIAA is so much more aggressive than the MPAA is that the RIAA is already dead and they are just trying to grab as much cash as they can before everyone else realises this.

 

[bigred]

So you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how badly you want to get rid of the RIAA, while you continue to support them thereby helping them to stay in business??

1 - I never said I wanted to get rid of them per se (although the idea definitely has it's appeal). I would prefer they change how they operate instead.

2 - I can probably count the CDs I've bought in the last 10 years on one hand (and there are IMO good odds at least 1 or 2 weren't under the RIAA Nazi-watch). To say I'm "supporting them" is a severe stretch on a technicality at best.

3 - Or even that aside and to get right to the point and answer the question: no, I wouldn't.

Or you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how the RIAA is ripping you off, while you rip them off?

I was kidding.

But even if I wasn't, I disagree that downloading free music (at least in my case) is ripping them off. Actually I have downloaded stuff, but it's stuff I already owned so I think legally I'm allowed to do that in that case. And if not, I should be as IMO I'm not ripping them off. If I couldn't download it, I sure as flip wouldn't go buy another copy, so they've lost no money on me.

Or even that aside and to again get right to the point and answer the question: no, I wouldn't. You're not comparing apples to apples.

 

[bigred]

disregard, fraggin dupe post

 

[geni]

Minor correction: Technological advances have made their business model irrelevant. The reason that the RIAA is so much more aggressive than the MPAA is that the RIAA is already dead and they are just trying to grab as much cash as they can before everyone else realises this.

RIAA is fairly soft compared to what getty and corbis have been getting up to of late. Strangely people don't go around calling them nazis or saying their business model is dead.

 

[geni]

1 - I never said I wanted to get rid of them per se (although the idea definitely has it's appeal). I would prefer they change how they operate instead.

How would you like them to operate?

But even if I wasn't, I disagree that downloading free music (at least in my case) is ripping them off. Actually I have downloaded stuff, but it's stuff I already owned so I think legally I'm allowed to do that in that case.

Nope. Try reading the terms of the lisence under which you were sold the music in the past.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Given the number of different models employed by RIAA memebers that seems unlikely.

And when each was introduced it was faught tooth and nail.

 

[shawn]

Try reading the terms of the lisence[sic] under which you were sold the music in the past.

So...do you work for the RIAA? Seriously, why would you defend their business model of suing their own customers? Even if you held a libertarian's point-of-view on the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to argue for their sake, since you'd have every confidence that the invisible hand of god...I mean, the market...would take care of everything in the end.

 

[geni]

So...do you work for the RIAA? Seriously, why would you defend their business model of suing their own customers?

Generaly they don't.

Of course sue anybody who uses whatever you happen to hold the IP on is hardly an unknown business model and can work quite well.

Even if you held a libertarian's point-of-view on the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to argue for their sake, since you'd have every confidence that the invisible hand of god...I mean, the market...would take care of everything in the end.

Nah just fed up with all the people who think if they wine enough copyright law wont apply to them.

You don't like the RIAA? Don't use the product's the memeber companies offer. IT's thier stuff and thus they can do whatever they darn well like with it.