Why won't the RIAA go the way of Enron?

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: jliechty
Do you support the method they want to use (assuming all are guilty and invading everyone's privacy to ensure that they're not)?

Eh.... pardon me for not bothering to read that entire bill, but how exactly are they invading everyone's privacy? By searching for illegal files on Kazaa, then using that evidence of piracy to obtain your personal information from your ISP? How does this affect someone who does not share or download copyrighted music?

It seems to me that the only people who whine about their "privacy" being violated are the people who NEED their "privacy" to hide their illegal activities.

Sorry, I should have linked to a summary page or something similar, but if I did that, some would pull one of those I-can't-discredit-the-argument-so-I'll-try-to-discredit-the-source moves because I got the page from the EFF, for example (I'm not accusing you of anything, but some people around here would almost certainly do that).

Anyway, I would agree with those who say that the RIAA is not invading privacy by searching for stuff on Kazaa. It's not really the greatest analogy, but if you list your phone number in the phone book, don't you expect to get a call occasionally from someone you don't know? That's not illegal (unless they happen to be a telemarketer, and your name is on a do-not-call list, but no such thing exists for Kazaa anyway).

However, what the aforementioned bill (the CBDTPA) requires is that a monitoring system be installed in each and every computer produced from the time when the bill goes into effect (one year after passing, IIRC). This system would be controlled by a centralized agency (or group), and could be used for such things as follows: viewing the contents of any computer at any time (over the 'net of course), deleting any files on said computer (on the whim of whomever is in control at the controlling agency), restricting the duplication of files beyond legal limits (i.e. no fair use, or you can't make a backup of your CDs onto your hard disk), and other similar KGB-like tactics.

Hopefully, now you see why some of the RIAA's methods leave a bad taste for me. Going after infringers is not wrong, but I'll leave it up to you to conclude what you'd like about things such as the CBDTPA. My mind is made up, however, and the RIAA will be getting US$0 of my money until their tactics change (if ever).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jliechty

However, what the aforementioned bill (the CBDTPA) requires is that a monitoring system be installed in each and every computer produced from the time when the bill goes into effect (one year after passing, IIRC). This system would be controlled by a centralized agency (or group), and could be used for such things as follows: viewing the contents of any computer at any time (over the 'net of course), deleting any files on said computer (on the whim of whomever is in control at the controlling agency), restricting the duplication of files beyond legal limits (i.e. no fair use, or you can't make a backup of your CDs onto your hard disk), and other similar KGB-like tactics.

Sounds like the ACLU needs to file a lawsuit. I assume the authorities would only be able to use such a system if there is sufficient probable cause, but they can always make that stuff up after the fact. That sort of thing is a clear violation of the constitution. I blame congress.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Do you support the method they want to use (assuming all are guilty and invading everyone's privacy to ensure that they're not)?

The RIAA's methods are not the issue raised by this thread. I agree with their goal of reducing piracy. Their methods are another issue, entirely. They should be Constitutional, legal, and ethical, none of which can be said about the actual piracy that is ripping off the artists and producers of the music who are the true victims, here.

flxnimprtmscl -- I didn't say that record companies and publishers haven't screwed artists. I know they have, and I know artists who have been screwed over, but that is a separate battle. It doesn't justify worldwide piracy by a bunch of greedy delinquents further ripping off those who create the music in the first place.

Originally posted by: thenewnoise
you are one of the stupider people in the world

The depth of your analysis, and the copious hard evidence you supply to support your thesis, speaks volumes about your own intellect. Come back for further discussion if you manage to complete your fifth attempt to pass the third grade.

Originally posted by: DaZ
But its alright for me to flip burgers for two-three hours to buy two or maybe three good songs, and some pictures of the person, while they live in 5 million dollar mansion on a hill in Los Angeles, (with three or four 60" flat screens) and some record exec, whom I've never heard of nor seen, drives a porche when he gets tired of his F1 Mclaren.

If you're back to flipping burgers after you managed to successfully create hit quality music, or any other art form, or otherwise managed to become successful in a business providing useful, constructive goods and/or services, and a mob of punk ass thieves stole your good works, then, NO, it would not be fair that you got ripped off for the wealth you should have earned for such work. However, that does not justify stealing from those who have managed to benefit from their own good work.

If you don't have a clue how to do that, then your choice of jobs is limited by your own abilities and the jobs that are available to you. If flipping burgers is the best you can find, at least you have an income generator. If you don't like it, stop complaining, and do something about it, but if you have any such abilities, you'd better hope those same ripoff kiddies don't steal it from you once you start getting some success. Meanwhile, your pissing and moaning about your own burger flipping job sounds like petty jealousy.

 

[jdogg]

I disagree here with your defense of artists ... what about CONCERTS ... how about forcing the artists to actually MAKE their money as opposed to sitting back and pumping out crap. How much profit does a big artist make from a concert? ... 100k? .. 200K? ... and thats ONE concert. does a person really deserve that much money for PLAYing and instrument? why is that job so superior to anyone else's? just as a side note, i hate ANY sort of person in the field of entertainment making obscene amounts of money (athlete's, actors, etc...) ergo, i rarely go to the movies, never pay to watch sporting events ... but i guess few people are willing to give up these lazy forms of entertainment

Originally posted by: Harvey
Unlike Enron, the ripoff is by all the ripoff whiners who steal the music. :| I'm really bored reading posts by so many wankers who wouldn't know which end of a guitar to hold, and who probably forgot the words to "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star," let alone show the create, play or sing any musical composition worthy of recording at home, pissing and moaning about the horrible old RIAA. :disgust:

Ya know -- It really doesn't matter if you think the RIAA is ripping off artists. I have yet to see one piece of evidence posted to support that. Even if the worst of those accusations are true, that's a matter between the artists and the RIAA. There are also plenty of other costs associated with producing, marketing and distributing muscial product.

OTOH, do you think it's just a great idea that your favorite performers should have to flip burgers all day just to cover their rent and food habits, then, come home and jam in their garages all night, just to entertain you for nothing?

BULLSH8!!! The only way anyone gets good enough to create a body of superior work and gain the ability to perform it is by spending most of that time doing it. In the real world, either some part of your art form supports your life, or you have to get a job.

It's time to stop all the whiney self pity over not being able to rip off the artists, writers, producers, publishers, manufacturers of the music you like and support them so they can continue to do it and keep eating at the same time. I support the RIAA's efforts to stamp out piracy. I'll be glad to take issue with them if they're ripping off the people whose interests they're supposed to be defending.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: jdogg
I disagree here with your defense of artists ... what about CONCERTS ... how about forcing the artists to actually MAKE their money as opposed to sitting back and pumping out crap. How much profit does a big artist make from a concert? ... 100k? .. 200K? ... and thats ONE concert. does a person really deserve that much money for PLAYing and instrument? why is that job so superior to anyone else's? just as a side note, i hate ANY sort of person in the field of entertainment making obscene amounts of money (athlete's, actors, etc...) ergo, i rarely go to the movies, never pay to watch sporting events ... but i guess few people are willing to give up these lazy forms of entertainment

No one told you that you have to buy a ticket to the concert. If you don't think they deserve that much per show, don't go. If enough of you think that, then they won't make as much per show because no large venue will host them.


Harvey, you are my hero! I only wish there were more people like you around, so the RIAA would be able to embrace P2P rather than see it drive their profits down.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: jdogg
I disagree here with your defense of artists ... what about CONCERTS ... how about forcing the artists to actually MAKE their money as opposed to sitting back and pumping out crap. How much profit does a big artist make from a concert? ... 100k? .. 200K? ... and thats ONE concert. does a person really deserve that much money for PLAYing and instrument? why is that job so superior to anyone else's? just as a side note, i hate ANY sort of person in the field of entertainment making obscene amounts of money (athlete's, actors, etc...) ergo, i rarely go to the movies, never pay to watch sporting events ... but i guess few people are willing to give up these lazy forms of entertainment

I really don't think I want anyone other than my employer and me determaining how much money I will be paid.

I don't think that a high class hooker should get 1-3K a night but alas that is between her and her employer for that evening

If you don't like the fact that someone makes more than you ask your self this, If you had a talent that had a great deal of demand and you were offered a large sum of money would you say no?

I know if someone came along and offered me a few million a year for a job that didn't envolve me taking off my clothing I would more than likely take it and if it had to be something I enjoyed doing that would make it a no brainer.

So I guess the real question here is what do you do for a living and why the hell are you so bitter.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: jdogg
I disagree here with your defense of artists ... what about CONCERTS ... how about forcing the artists to actually MAKE their money as opposed to sitting back and pumping out crap. How much profit does a big artist make from a concert? ... 100k? .. 200K? ... and thats ONE concert. does a person really deserve that much money for PLAYing and instrument? why is that job so superior to anyone else's? just as a side note, i hate ANY sort of person in the field of entertainment making obscene amounts of money (athlete's, actors, etc...) ergo, i rarely go to the movies, never pay to watch sporting events ... but i guess few people are willing to give up these lazy forms of entertainment

[/quote]

Yes, because every makes that much money off of every show.

Do you even have the slighest idea about how much it takes to tour or you are completely talkin' outta yer @ss?

You do realize that the pop bands that are successfully churning out crap left and right (n' sync, Ms. Spears, etc.,) and all the huge bands (KISS, DMB, Aeromsith, U2, etc.,) probably make up less than 5% of all the artists trying to make a living by playing music. It's just like w/actors. My numbers are a few years outta date but the point is pretty obvious. In LA there are arond 90,000 members of SAG (Screen actors guild) of that 90,000 about 1-2% are able to live off their acting income alone. Just because of very successful actors like Tom Cruise or Arnold everyone assumes all actors have it made even though 98% of the actors in LA have to have a day job just to make ends meet. Following your argruement everyone who works in the computer field is lazy and over paid because Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and Bill Gates are all rich.

Your logic is so flawed and point of view so uniformed that I wonder why you spoke out against something you know almost nothing of.


Lethal

 

Success is a byproduct of the artist creation but does not give you the right to steal from them. Record companies and publishers are not the only ones screwing the artist out of profits. Managers, promoters, merchandise distributors have been known to screw artists financially. Do you also advocate sneaking into concerts and stealing from merchandise vendors?
Is the RIAA really that bad just because they want to protect their assets from theft?
Would you not do the same if you where in their shoes?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jdogg
I disagree here with your defense of artists ... what about CONCERTS ... how about forcing the artists to actually MAKE their money as opposed to sitting back and pumping out crap.

So, you see no value in the music the artists created that is the reason there is interest in their concerts? :Q

Did you know that patents and copyrights are mandated by the U.S. Constitution? That was done to promote creative productivity and reward those who are successful. The song, poem, picture, invention, etc. has its own intrinsic value, regardless of any further income derived from marketing them.

What about songwriters who don't also happen to be star performers? Does your shortsighted logic allow some way for those who actually create the songs to share in the rewards for having created something of value to others?

Concert performances are separate creative efforts, and those who can successfully sell out a concert and satisfy their audiences deserve to be paid for the work they do at the concert, but it has nothing to do with being justly paid for the intrinsic value of the music, itself. If you want to bitch about high prices, I happen to hate ticket scalpers, including the "legal" ones, such as Ticket Master, who inflate the price of concert and other tickets way beyond their face value. Those assholes should be strung up by their short hairs because they are profiteering from the demand for the tickets without contributing anything of value of the show, itself. :|

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's time to stop all the whiney self pity over not being able to rip off the artists, writers, producers, publishers, manufacturers of the music you like and support them so they can continue to do it and keep eating at the same time. I support the RIAA's efforts to stamp out piracy. I'll be glad to take issue with them if they're ripping off the people whose interests they're supposed to be defending.

Agreed...People love to rationalize based on what's convenient for them.

Come on now, we all know what we're doing is wrong...

 

[astartz]

Originally posted by: DaZ

Originally posted by: Harvey
OTOH, do you think it's just a great idea that your favorite performers should have to flip burgers all day just to cover their rent and food habits, then, come home and jam in their garages all night, just to entertain you for nothing?

But its alright for me to flip burgers for two-three hours to buy two or maybe three good songs, and some pictures of the person, while they live in 5 million dollar mansion on a hill in Los Angeles, (with three or four 60" flat screens) and some record exec, whom I've never heard of nor seen, drives a porche when he gets tired of his F1 Mclaren.

Then grow up and dont buy it.

I want to lfy a plane but I can afford one. Sho how about I go "borrow" one from Southwest.
If I really like it I will buy one but I will keep the one one "borrowed" no matter what.

No one makes performers sign with a record company. If they think they can make more by them selves that be all means do it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: jliechty

Originally posted by: Harvey
I support the RIAA's efforts to stamp out piracy.

Do you support the method they want to use (assuming all are guilty and invading everyone's privacy to ensure that they're not)?

Eh.... pardon me for not bothering to read that entire bill, but how exactly are they invading everyone's privacy? By searching for illegal files on Kazaa, then using that evidence of piracy to obtain your personal information from your ISP? How does this affect someone who does not share or download copyrighted music?

It seems to me that the only people who whine about their "privacy" being violated are the people who NEED their "privacy" to hide their illegal activities.

Try following the link first before asking questions that are answered already.

Fascist police states say the same thing you do - That we don't need privacy at all.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: apoppinFascist police states say the same thing you do - That we don't need privacy at all.

Actually, pravacy is against the social good.

If we have privacy, we just invite Terrorists and Commie Bastards.