RIAA attacks internet radio

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

For that to work first you would have to buy that part about what they call "property" its really a property and it really belongs to them.

Anyway, you will tell that the holders of the truth are the ones in power, while the rest of the human kind lives in the darkness.

Kind of fun that in an skeptics forum we can find believers

If a human made the law, another human can change it (or ignore it, or twist it, or do whatever he wants to). Laws are a guidance system, not word of god. True, you get caught and IF you dont have the resources you pay with time in prision. But you might read my other posts in the subject, laws change, irreverent individuals change them. Talk about later, say, in 10 years. Music distribution system will be different than what we find now. Its already changing.

 

[geni]

For that to work first you would have to buy that part about what they call "property" its really a property and it really belongs to them.

It does.

If a human made the law, another human can change it (or ignore it, or twist it, or do whatever he wants to). Laws are a guidance system, not word of god. True, you get caught and IF you dont have the resources you pay with time in prision. But you might read my other posts in the subject, laws change, irreverent individuals change them. Talk about later, say, in 10 years. Music distribution system will be different than what we find now. Its already changing.

I've not run across any suggestion that any goverment plans to significantly liberalise copyright laws in this area.

Your stawmen may interest you I'm not sure how relivant they are to the rest of us.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your stawmen may interest you I'm not sure how relivant they are to the rest of us.

Because of your writing (staw... reliv...) I would say that it is interesting for you, and you want me to think that it isnt. Anyway, My guess is that you are a lawyer, and Im beyond labels.

Oh, and I didnt say anything about copyright, but business and distribution models.

 

[geni]

, My guess is that you are a lawyer

Nope wikipedian who's got fed up of dealing with all the people who either (a) don't understand copyright law at all ot (B) can't read instructions.

I mean seriously look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner
And to get there you have to have been through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fromowner

70%+ of what comes through that system is copyvio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext isn't much better.

If you don't like copyright law elect people who will change it to something you support. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

Oh, and I didnt say anything about copyright, but business and distribution models.

Given the current legal system why would any company with a decent back catalogue need a distribution model?

 

[bigred]

Please do not feed the trolls.

 

[Solus]

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?

Do what pirate bay did then I guess or move it to China.

 

[geni]

Do what pirate bay did

Get raided by the police?

The sealand thing would never work. If there was every anything done there that seriously conflicted with UK law the authorities would step in.

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.

then I guess or move it to China.

China is a signitory to the berne convention

 

[Solus]

Get raided by the police?

The sealand thing would never work. If there was every anything done there that seriously conflicted with UK law the authorities would step in.

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.

China is a signitory to the berne convention

You don't know much about China do you? China can be signatory to whatever convention there is. That's paper on though. The key is ENFORCEMENT China does not enforce that law, therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I have no idea where "sealand" is but if it's far from the UK, I think they would be overstepping their bounds striking at an independent location more or less. Besides it's the like a hydra.Those who think they can stop "piracy" have no clue.

 

[Solus]

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.
China is a signitory to the berne convention

You're either a lawyer or a programmer I bet... I'm leaning toward lawyer though based on your writing about law. I intend to go into the field of law as well. Pay me enough and I'd be arguing the same point you are.

 

[geni]

You don't know much about China do you? China can be signatory to whatever convention there is. That's paper on though. The key is ENFORCEMENT China does not enforce that law, therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

China is starting to inforce IP law. Anyway it is a Civl matter so the ammount of inforceing china has to do is limited.

I have no idea where "sealand" is but if it's far from the UK, I think they would be overstepping their bounds striking at an independent location more or less.

It's complicated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand

Priate bay were looking to move there at one point which should give you are fairly good idea how solid their grasp of the law is.

Besides it's the like a hydra.Those who think they can stop "piracy" have no clue.

Why would you want to stop it? Given that it removes your distribution costs there is a potential profit model where all your money comes from sueing those who priate your music.

There are various ways you could seriously mess with music pirateing. Some of them are even legal.

 

[geni]

You're either a lawyer or a programmer I bet... I'm leaning toward lawyer though based on your writing about law. I intend to go into the field of law as well. Pay me enough and I'd be arguing the same point you are.

Nope wikipedian who spends a lot of time dealing with copyright issues. Fortunely almost no one knows about .ogg Vorbis so music isn't to much of a problem.

A total of five people know how to convert files to .ogg Theora (ok not quite true there is a 6th but he isn't around much) so video is even less of a problem

Photos on the other hand. Well if you think the RIAA are nasty you haven't met Corbis and Getty:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html

Mostly I'm just reacting to the low quality of debates involveing copyright.
So much of it boils down to "I want free stuff". Well what free stuff have you created? I can answer that can you?

 

[Morrigan]

The RIAA have no dealings with artists. The RIAA deals with record lables and their shareholders. PLCs have a legal duty to maximise profits.

Yet they claim to do all that in the interest of the artists. Hmm... right.

It is imposible to prove that either way.

If that's the case, then their complaints about losing money are unfounded. But we do know that they are.

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

...
Oh noes, Sweden and Hong Kong are going to collapse on themselves..,

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?

Yes, I would.

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

No, I would not. Some of us don't shed any tears if a thief gets stolen from, after all. But copyright infringement isn't theft anyway.

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.

True.

 

[Almo]

I'm for not using products of the RIAA if you don't like their methods. Buy music from other sources. Lots of what I buy is from small independent labels. Not because of the business model, but because I prefer the music. But as long as the music you prefer is put out by bands on labels that are part of the RIAA, then you're stuck with it.

DLing music without paying for it is wrong. Hell with the semantics of the statement; you know what I mean.

 

[69dodge]

Mostly I'm just reacting to the low quality of debates involveing copyright.
So much of it boils down to "I want free stuff".

What's wrong with wanting free stuff?

Why is it ok for a producer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want longer copyrights, so I can get paid more for producing less stuff", but it's not ok for a consumer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want shorter copyrights, so I can pay less to get more stuff"?

Everybody wants stuff. Some kinds of stuff, if one person has it, no one else can have it. So we have to decide who should get it and who shouldn't. Other kinds of stuff, everyone can have. Shouldn't everyone get it, then?

Obviously, if no one makes it, no one will be able to get it. But isn't that a separate question?

1) How do we arrange for stuff to get made?

2) Once it's made, who gets it?

It's a shame, after stuff is made, to prevent people from getting it who could get it without harming anyone else. That helps no one, directly. Indirectly, it ensures that the stuff's producers get paid by those people willing to pay the asking price. Which is fine. But it also ensures that other people---those who aren't willing to pay that price---don't get the stuff even though their not getting it helps no one, simply because we can't think of a better way to distinguish the one group of people from the other, besides threatening everyone not to give them the stuff unless they pay, and then actually carrying out the threat when some people inevitably can't afford to.

 

[geni]

Yet they claim to do all that in the interest of the artists. Hmm... right.

Content creators do appear to like the music industry going by the number who sign up to it.

If that's the case, then their complaints about losing money are unfounded. But we do know that they are.

Unless you can show that no one has downloaded an album rather than buy it they do have a case.

...
Oh noes, Sweden and Hong Kong are going to collapse on themselves..,

Both have IP laws. Hong Kong uses the UK system as modified by the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance which kicked in in 1997. Although that only applies to stuff produced after that date before that the UK 1956 act applies.

This kind of thing is pretty standard for any former UK holdings.

Sweden has had IP laws for quite a long time and recent EU harminisation acts have closed a lot of the loopholes. Any remaining ones will liekly be closed over the next few years.

No, I would not. Some of us don't shed any tears if a thief gets stolen from, after all. But copyright infringement isn't theft anyway.

Please be provideing evidence that the RIAA have committed theft or that their member companies (not the artists) have deliberately committed theft.

 

[geni]

What's wrong with wanting free stuff?

In a capitalist society it is an unreasonable expectation.

Why is it ok for a producer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want longer copyrights, so I can get paid more for producing less stuff",

The odds of them frameing the argument that way are zlich.

but it's not ok for a consumer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want shorter copyrights, so I can pay less to get more stuff"?

Because shorter is meaningless. Give a length.

Everybody wants stuff. Some kinds of stuff, if one person has it, no one else can have it. So we have to decide who should get it and who shouldn't. Other kinds of stuff, everyone can have. Shouldn't everyone get it, then?

The cheap objection to that is that AIDs falls into that catigory.

The more legit answer is not if it stops it existing in the first place.

Obviously, if no one makes it, no one will be able to get it. But isn't that a separate question?

Since we are talking about changes to a single unified system no.

1) How do we arrange for stuff to get made?

I think Adam Smith had something to say about that.

2) Once it's made, who gets it?

In a capitalist societly however choses to pay the asking price.