http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/0 ... s-wit.html
Obama's DOJ Sides with RIAA ... _with_RIAA
Apparently when it comes to going after those evil music thieves, the Obama administration is just like the Bush administration. Two top officials in the new legal administrations are former RIAA lawyers, and the new administration says $175,000 per song stolen seems pretty fair.
They can't find the world's top terrorists; if you rape someone, you won't necessarily be filing for chapter 11 anytime soon, but download an MP3 you didn't pay for and its curtains for the life you had as you know it.
This is not the change I believe it. It's more big government being bought by industries who can't come up with a relevant business plan besides "sue everyone". This is why I am increasingly against big government... it is powerful, yet that power can be so easily bought.
While the punishment for copyright infringement should be... > 99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous, and completely ignores the idea of punishment fitting the crime. It is sickening.
I think the way digital rights are considered needs to be changed. It's not the same as property rights, where a fixed quantity of something material is being removed to the detriment of a private body. The digital realm is non-physical. The music industry is still fully functional and they even have mp3s for sale on itunes and other pay-per-download networks. It's not like downloading mp3s is really destroying their entire industry.
In any case, I don't support the removal of the rights of everyone in order to protect a few companies. The digital information era is here... all non-physical media is subject to distribution. Why bother fighting it? We're becoming an information species.
While the punishment for copyright infringement should be > 99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous, and completely ignores the idea of punishment fitting the crime. It is sickening.
99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous
...zero per song.
First, the internet was developed to "share".
Second, ever hear of reel-to-reel, cassette or vcr tapes?
The real crime here is the RIAA and the governments violation of right to privacy laws.
If they want to protect their music or other forms of media, then encrypt/encode them so they can't be recorded or "shared".
I wonder how many people made mix tapes or sat there there with a radio tape recorded and recorded their favorite songs off the radio?
This is another example of whats wrong with our country. People believe they are entitled to a static career, meaning they believe that once they start a career, they expect that career must still be in place when they retire.
Job progression means a destruction of old, and outdated jobs. There is nothing wrong with that. All this protectionism by the government, of these outdated jobs, stymies our nations progress. I've used this example before. If these retards running our country now, existed back in the early 1900s, we'd still be driving carts and buggys because they couldn't stand the thought of cart and buggy dealers not having a career.
This music thing is just another example of outdated jobs, clinging to the government for protection.
Being an artist/muscian is an outdated gig? Maybe the business model needs to change.
I support you being an artist/musician (although I've never seen or heard your work) but how can anyone expect, that once their work is public, that no one will copy it.
You can't control it once it leaves your hands.
I might get scalded for this but the artsy jobs are becoming more and more like the herd of people who want to be actors.
The market is full so don't expect much.
I'm actually trained as a visual artist. Copyright laws are there to protect my income for my efforts and investments as well as intellectual property.
So some one can take credit for my work and it is aokay?
That has always pretty much been true. BTW actors are artists as well.
I understand completely, but realistically how are you going to control that if 50,000 people run off with a copy not paying you?
Not that isn't ok. Since most artists release their works with some sort of reference that shouldn't happen as much.
Actors are artists? Have you seen "Glitter" or "The Hottie and The Nottie" ?
Highly debatable.
so if I can hack into your bank account and take your money then I shouldn't be punished. Afterall the internet was developed to share. :roll:...zero per song.
First, the internet was developed to "share".
ever heard of "fair-use". Apparently not.Second, ever hear of reel-to-reel, cassette or vcr tapes?
how is your privacy being violated by being sued?The real crime here is the RIAA and the governments violation of right to privacy laws.
So its the companys problem when people violate the law? So if I steal your car then its OK because you should have done better to protect it?If they want to protect their music or other forms of media, then encrypt/encode them so they can't be recorded or "shared".
That is what the court system is for. Personally I think sueing some kid with a computer is a silly way to go about it though and mostly benefits the lawyers.
It happens and has happened to me.
Oh man Mama Mia sheeeesh that flick was terrible and I was stuck on the airplane for three hours.
I'm actually trained as a visual artist. Copyright laws are there to protect my income ...
I wonder how many people made mix tapes or sat there there with a radio tape recorded and recorded their favorite songs off the radio?
so if I can hack into your bank account and take your money then I shouldn't be punished. Afterall the internet was developed to share. :roll:
ever heard of "fair-use". Apparently not.
how is your privacy being violated by being sued?
So its the companys problem when people violate the law?
So if I steal your car then its OK because you should have done better to protect it?
You are ignorant to intellectual property rights and laws. Educate yourself on IP laws and why they exist before giving an opinion on things which you know nothing about.
. Your logic: It wasn't a "big deal" back then to businesses so I can't fathom why its a "big deal" now. :dohThe RIAA was the topic of research for a college course I took several years back.
Watching old band interviews revealed the true hypocrisy in all of this. I can't tell you how many had nonchalantly talked about how in their early years they couldn't wait for a new album release, they'd pool their money to buy it, then tape it.
Why is that?The epitome of it all though, I did a search for some lyrics of a current pop star, the result of the search was that I could purchase the lyrics and sheet music.
Truly a sad day indeed.
. Your logic: It wasn't a "big deal" back then to businesses so I can't fathom why its a "big deal" now. :doh
. Why is that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?