RIAA: Black Friday RIAA Protest & Boycott organization starting here - Keep tuned

[Ornery]

Here's the issues of this topic:

• A lame ass one day boycott of CD purchases to show the RIAA something.
  
• A bunch of thieves whining about how they deserve free downloads, because the price is too steep!
  
• More whining about losing freedom due to RIAA following perfectly legal lobbying tactics.

All was well and good till the evil RIAA found a viable weapon they could use. Oh, that so sucks doesn't it? The whiners are breaking my heart...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Here's the issues of this topic:

• A lame ass one day boycott of CD purchases to show the RIAA something.
  
• A bunch of thieves whining about how they deserve free downloads, because the price is too steep!
  
• More whining about losing freedom due to RIAA following perfectly legal lobbying tactics.

All was well and good till the evil RIAA found a viable weapon they could use. Oh, that so sucks doesn't it? The whiners are breaking my heart...

Name calling when you can't think of anything else?

Your usual lack of comprehension is . . . well, usual - in your inability to debate anything non-geek. .

As in everything else, I have no pearls to cast in front of you . . .

And it's a nice day outside . . .

aloha.

We don't care to convince ANYONE here. Those who are ALREADY moved by INjusice will act. The others can rollover and watch our freedoms erode . . .

 

[Ornery]

Injustice! Oh brother

It's perfectly fine to steal, but when the victim grows some teeth, it's unjust! Unbelievable, but typical...

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• More whining about losing freedom due to RIAA following perfectly legal lobbying tactics.

So it's perfectly legal for a corporation to go against the constitution? Oh yea, I forgot, the constitution doesn't matter any more. Corporations are above the law.

Again, suing people who infringe upon your copyrights is not wrong; but trying to legislate something that will invade the privacy of all, innocent as well as guilty, and give an untrustworthy corporation power that even the government shouldn't have, is definitely wrong. I would put something in here about certain people's lack of comprehension, but I do not want to drop to the level of the "other side" in making ad hom statements and false accusations.

 

[Ornery]

• It's legal!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• It's legal!

What are you trying to say by that? The DMCA does not address the issue that I raised in my previous post. A careful reader would notice that I specifically stated "trying to legislate," thus excluding the DMCA from the description that followed. My description refers specifically to the CBDTPA, a bill that would enforce the aforementioned things, as well as having other less-than-desirable (unless one works for the RIAA) consequences.

 

[Ornery]

Macrovision has been pretty well accepted and a standard, which hasn't hurt a thing. I can see this going the same way. Geeks use technology to steal, but when the victims ram through legislation that turns technology in their favor... "Our freedoms are being subverted!"

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Macrovision has been pretty well accepted and a standard, which hasn't hurt a thing. I can see this going the same way. Geeks use technology to steal, but when the victims ram through legislation that turns technology in their favor... "Our freedoms are being subverted!"

I figured you'd use this argument, as most do. So, because I value my rights in this country, that automatically means that I must want to infringe? Or, put another way, just because I dislike the RIAA, does that automatically mean that I must want to infringe upon their rights? <sarcasm> That's some nice, sound logic that you're using there. </sarcasm>

Put yet another way, just because I have an intense dislike for [a certain company that makes cars], does that necessarily imply that I am a theif who steals [brand of car made by said company]? Though it sounds absurd, all of these statements follow the same logical process, and the first are just as silly as the last.

Look at this another way: Macrovision is not forced upon everyone. If I don't like Macrovision, I just do without Macrovision-encoded content. It would be fine with me if the RIAA started offering DRM-protected MP3s for purchase (and subsequent download), as Apple is currently offering DRM-protected content through its online music store. Since I disagree with DRM concepts on a philosophical level, as well as the tight restrictions usually put on DRM-encoded files (no backups, no ability to transfer from one computer to another, etc.), I simply refuse to purchase it (incidentally, I also do not steal it, despite the preconceived notions that you'd like to have of me).

What I have a problem with is an untrustworthy corporation trying to force DRM-enabled hardware and software on everyone - even those who have no desire to view or listen to DRM-protected content. Since DRM-enabled hardware and software can also be used for other less-than-noble purposes, such as restriction of free speech, and restriction of interoperability by large monopolistic corporations (Microsoft would love to make MS Office documents unreadable to OpenOffice and KOffice, and DRM equipment would let them do this for "security reasons"), I would much rather just see DRM-enabled hardware introduced alongside DRM-free hardware; then, let the people decide if they want entertainment more than freedom, or vice versa.

By the way, please get it out of your head that "freedom" equals "a desire to steal." For some of us, "freedom" simply equals a desire to run our own legal open-source applications without interference. I know this is a hard concept to grasp, but it is entirely possible, though some will not accept that fact.

 

[Ornery]

Where did I say you were stealing? That's right, I DIDN'T!

Macrovision protection is built into the hardware by law now. You can thank thieves for that. The RIAA is backed into this corner. The precedent has already been set. How ever this pans out you can thank thieves for bringing it on all of us, but it still makes me laugh to hear them whimper and whine so much about it. I don't care for Macrovision, but I understand the need for it, and I am living with it just fine...

 

[DigDug]

Ornery is an idiot drone.


That something is legal makes it no more proper and "correct" than the inappropriateness of something "illegal". While it may have been the case at some point when morality and law were often as one, we live in an age where laws are essentially bought by the corporate powerhouses - perhaps nowhere is this as evident as with intellectual property laws. Yes, the DMCA is "legal", but it is to many, a law that goes against notions of liberty, and may well be found to be "illegal" (read: unconstitutional) if brought in front of the Supreme Court.
There reason there isn't more shock at the RIAAs adamant refusal to embrace new technology, and instead, destroy it, is because the courts of our country have essentially followed the same stance - desperately trying to fit new technology into antiquated laws. Intellectual property is NOT the same as tangible property, and as such, laws treating the former as the latter will and have inevitably run into problems.

 

[Ornery]

Blow it out your ass fvcktard, but I agree on one point. I'm still trying to figure out how our Constitution can state that no person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, yet abortion is still legal. A baby in utero after 8 months is not a person?

This isn't quite as important as abortion, but having a chip in my VCR or PC to prevent copying just doesn't get my panties in a bunch. I'm going to have to side with the victims on this one too.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
Ornery is an idiot drone.


That something is legal makes it no more proper and "correct" than the inappropriateness of something "illegal". While it may have been the case at some point when morality and law were often as one, we live in an age where laws are essentially bought by the corporate powerhouses - perhaps nowhere is this as evident as with intellectual property laws. Yes, the DMCA is "legal", but it is to many, a law that goes against notions of liberty, and may well be found to be "illegal" (read: unconstitutional) if brought in front of the Supreme Court.
There reason there isn't more shock at the RIAAs adamant refusal to embrace new technology, and instead, destroy it, is because the courts of our country have essentially followed the same stance - desperately trying to fit new technology into antiquated laws. Intellectual property is NOT the same as tangible property, and as such, laws treating the former as the latter will and have inevitably run into problems.

It is apparent that you have never created anything that isn't "tangable"

If you create something that can be equally duplicated you should not be compisated for it?

Please you make me laugh.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Blow it out your ass fvcktard, but I agree on one point. I'm still trying to figure out how our Constitution can state that no person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, yet abortion is still legal. A baby in utero after 8 months is not a person?

Ok, is this directed at me again? Oh, btw, I don't think abortion should be legal, either.

This isn't quite as important as abortion, but having a chip in my VCR or PC to prevent copying just doesn't get my panties in a bunch. I'm going to have to side with the victims on this one too.

Well, that's fine: if it's not going to stop me from doing any legal thing that I do now, then let them have their way. Fvck the people who want to use their computers in legal ways that would be stopped by this assine legislation. I can see that you're a very considerate, caring person who embraces justice for all.

 

[Ornery]

Hell no, that's for the moron bitching about something unconstitutional being legal.

Point is, the RIAA is going through the legal steps necessary to meet their end. They were pushed into it, and this is their solution. Perhaps someday they'll do the iToon thing, but that's their decision to make, not the thieves among us.


Edit: In your opinion, is anybody hindered by Macrovision in this way?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Hell no, that's for the moron bitching about something unconstitutional being legal.

Point is, the RIAA is going through the legal steps necessary to meet their end. They were pushed into it, and this is their solution. Perhaps someday they'll do the iToon thing, but that's their decision to make, not the thieves among us.

I agree: it's their choice whether or not to change formats. Their lack or slowness of changing formats does not justify the "Robin Hood" approach. I don't know how much they were "pushed into" such legislation as the CBDTPA, but that's not something really worth arguing. I did take my legal option to write to my representatives about my opinion of said bill, as did many other Americans. What happens in the end will be up to Congress, and possibly the Supreme Court.

Edit: In your opinion, is anybody hindered by Macrovision in this way?

Me personally? No, I have not been hindered by Macrovision. I could think of a case where someone who has two VCRs and wants to make a fair-use backup of a videotake would run into problems (which of course makes sense, because the RIAA claims that we have no fair use rights, despite the law saying otherwise). Admittedly, that situation would be relatively rare.

 

[Ornery]

No it wouldn't. I'd LOVE to make VHS backups of my DVDs! So far I'm content that the manufacturer will replace defective media for the cost of shipping. I assume they'll do this, but I've never had to find out so far...

I also assume the chips for PCs will function the same way. As long as the media you're working with isn't copy protected, you won't know the difference.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: Staples
I find these things funny. People complain that the RIAA doesn't have a right to be mad that you are stealing from them. How bought you give me a few dollars since no one has a right to be mad for getting money stolen from them.

well alot of the stuff i get is european electronica and most of the artists there don't care if you d/l their music
(i still support alot of them when they have concerts in the US by going to those so eh)

 

[Wingznut]

I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that many, many people download music illegally...

What do you suggest the RIAA do to protect their interests?

 

[Ornery]

Senator wants limits on copy protection

• "The legislation seeks to create new tools to combat unfettered Internet piracy of digital content while maintaining the important ability of our nation's hardware manufacturers to innovate and build products consumers need and want to use," Brownback said in a statement. "The legislation recognizes that the same DRM technologies used to combat piracy are also sought after by the content industry to create new DRM-enabled business models. My legislation gives them a free hand in seeking out DRM technologies that permit them to explore these new opportunities, but ensures their success or failure will rest in the marketplace, where it belongs--not in Congress."

There are clear heads mulling over this issue. From what I've read, a fair resolution can be crafted, but it will be complex.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that many, many people download music illegally...

What do you suggest the RIAA do to protect their interests?

Ok, here's a suggestion (a good compromise, IMHO). Go ahead and enforce what's currently enforceable (sue people that infringe). People will be scared to use Kazaa, and, given the complexity of the secure alternatives, most will just quit (the RIAA will just have to get over the fact that you're not going to stop every one of the pirates, no matter what you do). Once that's done, illegal filesharing will not be much of a problem anymore. Then, work with current software DRM options to come up with a viable "new format"; as long as the price is right, and reasonable fair use rights are left intact, people will (most likely) flock to the new legal alternative (look at the success of Apple's Itunes, even with its limited userbase).

In this case, p2p technology won't need to be banned (DRM-protected files won't "work" for anyone but the legal owner, anyway), and hardware DRM won't be needed (properly implemented software DRM should work fine). Nevertheless, I think the RIAA will probably do both of the things listed in my first paragraph (well, continue to do the one, and probably end up doing the second after a while). In addition, they will try to kill all p2p technology (even though with DRM and lawsuits, it won't be much of a problem), because it could provide a convenient platform for artists to release music directly, bypassing the RIAA: files can be DRM-protected if necessary, and the - much smaller - license files can be purchased from the artist's website, saving the artist a great deal of money on webhosting bandwidth costs. They will also try to implement hardware DRM, because they most likely won't be content with the reasonable controls that software DRM provides; they will insist on something that is totally uncrackable (yeah, right), and they will insist on being able to kill all fair use rights (they claim that you don't have any, so why not?). FWIW, copy-protected CDs do this already (note that magic markers violate the DMCA because they allow people to un-copy-protect some of their CDs).

 

[Wingznut]

jliechty... So, your only problem with the RIAA is them trying to get rid of P2P? Or is it the hardware DRM?

Those who think that hardware DRM will somehow cease technology are just not right.

 

Hell no, that's for the moron bitching about something unconstitutional being legal.

So the legislative branch has never made laws that go against our constitutional rights.... right.

After reading jliechty's posts I have to say I agree plenty with much of what he says.
The complete restriction of forms of art is against my philosophical views.

How far do you let inhuman corporations go?
Mabey a retina scan before I sit down and watch a movie I rented from Blockbuster?
Oh oh, how about we have the retailer take my DNA sample at the time of purchase, and encode it into the cd. So the only time the cd can start playing is when I physically do it. Yea, that sounds GREAT! That would eliminate all sharing and boost profits 300%!!!

 

[Ornery]

Great reading skilz, Clyde!

Originally posted by: Ornery
...but I agree on one point. I'm still trying to figure out how our Constitution can state that no person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, yet abortion is still legal. A baby in utero after 8 months is not a person?

This isn't quite as important as abortion, but having a chip in my VCR or PC to prevent copying just doesn't get my panties in a bunch. I'm going to have to side with the victims on this one too.

It's your representatives who are going to decide how far evil corporations can go. They slipped copygard chips in your VCR without much bitching from you. This needs to be resolved in some fair fashion, but any solution at all is not going to sit well with our whining little theives, who feel they're entitled to all 'forms of art' for free.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that many, many people download music illegally...

What do you suggest the RIAA do to protect their interests?

I don't care what the RIAA does to protect itself OTHER than what it is doing now. Do you think they are really looking for any alternatives.

And AGAIN - I don't care if ANY of you naysayers (drop dead or) do ANYTHING.

The people who DO care about our freedom and who want to protest the RIAA's tactics - let's do that 1-day "trial" boycott . . .

. . . it's CONSUMERISM, we are advocating US - the consumer - OVER Megabusiness.

 

[Ornery]

I'm not doing ANYTHING, but laughing at the 'art' thieves whining about their fate. Oh, and their lame one day protest... what a hoot!

They're the ones responsible for the evil Megabusiness going ballistic. Place the blame where it really belongs. Some of us enjoy seeing crooks get slapped... HARD!