RIAA Countersued

[Parrot of doom]

www.allofmp3.com tbh

Perfectly legal too.

 

[Sulkdodds]

insult me all you want

D:

Arabesque! Ectoplasm! Troglodyte! Sea cucumber! Pickled herring! Anacoluthon! Filibuster! Baboon! Carpet-seller! Pockmark! Cannibal! Duck-billed platypus! Bashi-bazouk! Pirate! Coelacanth! Vulture! Ostrogoth! Swine! Jellyfish! Savage! Pockmarked Polynesian! Invertebrate! Nincompoop! Miserable molecule of mildew! Politician! Freshwater swab! Disgusting detesteble dirigible-wrecker! Jehovah's witness! Pontious Pilate! Iconoclast! Squawking popinjay! Prattling porpoise! Pea-kettle! Ku-Klux Klansman! Galloping gallumping grizzly bear! Lepitdoptera! You olympic athelete, you! You disgrace to the emancipiation proclamation! Totallitarian windbag! Jackbooted jackanape! Fancy-dressed fascist! Abinsthe-adulterer! Shens scraper! Humbumbling humbug! Despicable speck of slimy goo! Dictatorial duck-billed diplodocus! Reprehensible rodent! Sunbathing lizard! Freudian excuse for a forumgoer! Toffee-nosed traditionalist tout! Gambling gamboling gribbly grasper! Bilgewater-drinking drunkard! Drug lord! Pimp! Pop-tart paparazzi! Daily Mail journalist! Jack Thompson! Bottle-nosed dolphin! Childrens book writer! Bullshit artist! Free Foxtrot campaigner! Certified Brontosaurian! Creationist cuckold! Evolutionist ectoplasm! Antichrist! Antibuddha! Nazi! Nitwit! Pincushion! You make me sick! You make me puke! You're a leper, a disease, a virus, a contamination! You bring with you the 10 plagues of Egypt! You pathetic prattling pockmarked pr0n-downloading piece of barnacle-encrusted Confederate Ironclad debris! Chundering chupacabra! RJMC! You plunderer-by-night, you rapist, you murderer, burglerer and manslaughterist! You insanely dribbling, mental-hospital defouling, Thief's-cradle-worthy, babylonian-scale, edwardian, lothian, loathsome, bothersome, botherous, chunderous, plunderous, scandalous, perfidious, perfumed, badly-groomed, too-often assumed, disgustingly plumed, wilting the flowers, misuse-of-police-powers, cowering snivelling ratcheting withering blithering blathering vomiting gromiting hateful hurtful bitchful evil awful whoreful oarful mopeful dropeful dopey cokey-taking, mickey-snatching, belief-beggaring, smeggering spit-fleckelling fledgling gretchin gremlin grinchly pinchy snitchy bitchy nasty pasty hasty wastey-, bleeding-heart, utter fart, disgraceful tart, smini-mart, till operating beurocratic snore-o-matic bore-o-frantic obsessively semantic unromantic stupidly pedantic caustic maddening flattening reddening whore of a disgraceful excuse for a miserably badly-spelt, awkward, mawkish, stylistically-appalling, exceptionally galling logic-mauling crow-calling show-stopping be-bopping head-lopping whorehopping ****.

edit: With arsenic sauce!

 

[poseyjmac]

wow, didn't know we were so similar, sulkdodds.

 

[Sui]

wow, didn't know we were so similar, sulkdodds.

That won't do; if you want to insult him equally, you have to type up a similiar list of insults, all origonal.

 

[poseyjmac]

That won't do; if you want to insult him equally, you have to type up a similiar list of insults, all origonal.

ok! but not in this thread, id prefer if we stayed on topic..

still waiting for your reply, laivasse. and don't get me wrong, i don't preach to people about pirating music, people do what they want. as long as they know the consequences of what they are doing.

 

[Laivasse]

the thing is i'm not claiming i can disprove what would happen in this universe. all that argument i explained does is prove that NO ONE can prove what would happen in that universe, which is why its a false excuse and a lie one tells himself so that he can sleep at night.

Not really. While it's not philosophically wrong to say that "You can't make this assertion, because you'll never be in a situation where you could see if it was true", people nevertheless make lots of assumptions like that one all the time without taking it to that level of philosophical self-examination. "I'd never have known about this place if I hadn't met you..." etc etc. While you can use your argument to say, with a painstaking attention to possibilities, people can never be sure they wouldn't buy a CD, you also have to accept that on a common sense level people tend to know their own behaviour. "I would never buy it" usually isn't a self-deception people use to ease their conscience, but just an assessment of their own tastes and behaviour.

Why do you think people would go so out of their way to make themselves feel better anyway? It is clear even from the posts so far that some people download massive amounts, admit it, and also admit that they don't really care about the effect on the industry, so it's not like they have a guilty conscience to bury.

but also it can't be proven that piracy DOESN'T affect the music industry in a 'bad way'

but define 'bad way' if you will.

Bad way = causing a decline in sales, or perhaps potential sales. You could, and it looks like you're going to try to, argue that the music industry might be prospering even more if it wasn't for piracy. Like other aspects of this, you can't prove that one way or the other, but I'd go one step further and say noone needs to go out of their way to make it prosper any further, if that prosperity comes at the expense of consumer rights, or if it means demonising an activity that simply hasn't been proved to cause any harm.

MP3 trading is a valid means of trying before you buy, getting to hear new music, promoting bands from the completely unknown to the word-of-mouth level - usually for bands that fall within the 10% of sales which don't feed straight into RIAA pockets - and getting ahold of music which simply isn't sold by major retailers.

There's no law that states every music enthusiast has an obligation to try and maximise the profits of the RIAA into infinity. Music, out of all the sector of the entertainment industry, is one where consumers vote with their feet and can decide very simply whether something makes them feel good enough for them to want to spend money on it or not. If people hear something and don't want to buy it afterwards - well, that's just something that the BPI has to cope with, after all they are already enjoying record-breaking sales. The idea that people should pay money just for the privilege of hearing music is a draconian idea. After all, I wouldn't pay money just to hear or read a poem. However if I liked it enough, I might buy a book of poems by the poet. Most people apply this same rationale in participating in both mp3-trading AND music purchasing at the same time.

 

[xcellerate]

nvm...

 

[poseyjmac]

Not really. While it's not philosophically wrong to say that "You can't make this assertion, because you'll never be in a situation where you could see if it was true", people nevertheless make lots of assumptions like that one all the time without taking it to that level of philosophical self-examination. "I'd never have known about this place if I hadn't met you..." etc etc. While you can use your argument to say, with a painstaking attention to possibilities, people can never be sure they wouldn't buy a CD, you also have to accept that on a common sense level people tend to know their own behaviour. "I would never buy it" usually isn't a self-deception people use to ease their conscience, but just an assessment of their own tastes and behaviour.

i see you what you said, but its really irrelevant. common sense, and what people would usually do doesn't stand up when environments change. the bottom line is we don't know for sure, so while we are able to gauge what we are likely to do, we can't accurately gauge what we would do. theres no need to continue along this vein of discussion.

Why do you think people would go so out of their way to make themselves feel better anyway? It is clear even from the posts so far that some people download massive amounts, admit it, and also admit that they don't really care about the effect on the industry, so it's not like they have a guilty conscience to bury.

the guilty conscience is buried Before they start doing the act. who waits till after they rob a bank to decide if its a good idea or not?

they established their beliefs on what their actions do before they started downloading, however false they may be. once the self-brainwashing occured, then they are free to download to their hearts content with no feeling of remorse. as long as those beliefs aren't shattered. and likely they will never be because even with the most convincing of proof, if people don't want to believe, they won't. as it all comes back to making yourself feel good.

Bad way = causing a decline in sales, or perhaps potential sales. You could, and it looks like you're going to try to, argue that the music industry might be prospering even more if it wasn't for piracy. Like other aspects of this, you can't prove that one way or the other, but I'd go one step further and say noone needs to go out of their way to make it prosper any further, if that prosperity comes at the expense of consumer rights, or if it means demonising an activity that simply hasn't been proved to cause any harm.

theres not much i can prove on a forum about the music industry, so don't expect me to try anything TOO ridiculous

but this is a good topic id like to discuss. now who decides how much money a company charges for their product ultimately?

NOT the consumer. so when people start saying things like 'oh they don't need more money anyway, they have enough'. this is simply invalid, and they have no right to say that. you either buy the product or you don't, thats ideally how it should work.

theres a common attitude that infects many people. that if a company or person has a lot of money, then they don't need more, even if they deserve it. but if you have a little, then you need more even if you don't deserve it. both scenarios are unfair and its not up to us to decide what people should get.

so that argument doesn't have a moral(let alone legal) leg to stand on. its not about the amounts, its about what is deserved and fair. a company deserves to get what they charge for a product, or they deserve nothing for nothing. they do NOT deserve to have their product used for free illegally.
nor does bob at mcdonalds deserve to have 80 cents taken out of his paycheck every week because someone thought that its such a small chunk, it doesn't matter anyway.

i really wish that karma was a more solid and real concept. if it was, there would be far less piracy.

MP3 trading is a valid means of trying before you buy, getting to hear new music, promoting bands from the completely unknown to the word-of-mouth level - usually for bands that fall within the 10% of sales which don't feed straight into RIAA pockets - and getting ahold of music which simply isn't sold by major retailers.

i can agree that mp3 trading has its value. and for many they do just use it to try it out, and then they buy it anyway. i agree with that. but unfortunately these don't represent everyone.

There's no law that states every music enthusiast has an obligation to try and maximise the profits of the RIAA into infinity. Music, out of all the sector of the entertainment industry, is one where consumers vote with their feet and can decide very simply whether something makes them feel good enough for them to want to spend money on it or not. If people hear something and don't want to buy it afterwards - well, that's just something that the BPI has to cope with, after all they are already enjoying record-breaking sales. The idea that people should pay money just for the privilege of hearing music is a draconian idea. After all, I wouldn't pay money just to hear or read a poem. However if I liked it enough, I might buy a book of poems by the poet. Most people apply this same rationale in participating in both mp3-trading AND music purchasing at the same time.

people quickly forget that there are average-quality versions of music to download for free at artists websites, or for popular music, vh1.com, mtv.com, etc. i know i know, many aren't into pop. but still, most bands websites have free samples. and its also pretty lame to say that someone can't determine the musical value of a song from a low-medium quality recording. thats just a copout. imo, stairway to heaven is still a great song even in a low quality version. i don't need a high quality version to tell me that its good.

 

[Laivasse]

Well, I suppose it boils down to opinion versus opinion on some points.

I will take issue with your big point in the middle about opinions regarding entitlement to profit, though. Regardless of what you might think about anti-corporate sentiment, the fact remains that the RIAA/BPI/whatever are waging their campaigns against mp3-trading based on an assumption that they somehow deserve more money than they are getting - something they cannot even come close to proving, especially when their own sales figures suggests towards the contrary.

In the interests of stopping mp3 trading altogether, which supposedly eats into 'deserved' potential profits that they can't prove they would ever get, the RIAA are willing to do all kinds of dodgy things. They have the money and clout to attempt to influence legislation in the US, such as the INDUCE act, which would reverse the principle which made VCR's legal in the first place, a principle which led to such huge leaps in the home entertainment sector. Such a law could also potentially make CD and DVD writers illegal. Along the same lines, they have expressed a desire to be allowed to destroy the data and even the PC's of people they suspect to be sharing copyrighted material, taking their desire to protect their profits into the berserk and Orwellian.

They release CD's containing corrupt data so that they cannot be backed up - these CD's don't even fall under the technical definition of a CD, and Philips are very upset at seeing their creation twisted in this way. These infringe consumer rights in terms of preventing people from making legal backups of their material, and they have been known to damage personal property by breaking CD players, car stereos, Apple Macs and so forth. Record labels have been legally challenged over these "copy-protected CD's" by consumers and have been found to be in the wrong by the courts, yet they carry on using them because they can afford to.

Let's also mention attempts to sue girls as young as 12 and old ladies of 66 for 'copyright infringement', pricing these people out of court and often into bankruptcy.

All for the sake of protecting copyright, or rather potential profits, which they can't prove they would ever receive or 'deserve' anyway.

You've expressed a desire for karma to come into effect against 'pirates', but if anyone is in need of a little evidence of karma, it's the labels behind these filthy tricks and propaganda.

 

[Ermac]

RIAA can go to hell. Download a song if you agree. Download three if you want to stick it to them.

Hell i have over 20 GBs of Downloaded music.
I dont think i have ever baught a cd in my life..

 

[poseyjmac]

Well, I suppose it boils down to opinion versus opinion on some points.

I will take issue with your big point in the middle about opinions regarding entitlement to profit, though. Regardless of what you might think about anti-corporate sentiment, the fact remains that the RIAA/BPI/whatever are waging their campaigns against mp3-trading based on an assumption that they somehow deserve more money than they are getting - something they cannot even come close to proving, especially when their own sales figures suggests towards the contrary.

In the interests of stopping mp3 trading altogether, which supposedly eats into 'deserved' potential profits that they can't prove they would ever get, the RIAA are willing to do all kinds of dodgy things. They have the money and clout to attempt to influence legislation in the US, such as the INDUCE act, which would reverse the principle which made VCR's legal in the first place, a principle which led to such huge leaps in the home entertainment sector. Such a law could also potentially make CD and DVD writers illegal. Along the same lines, they have expressed a desire to be allowed to destroy the data and even the PC's of people they suspect to be sharing copyrighted material, taking their desire to protect their profits into the berserk and Orwellian.

They release CD's containing corrupt data so that they cannot be backed up - these CD's don't even fall under the technical definition of a CD, and Philips are very upset at seeing their creation twisted in this way. These infringe consumer rights in terms of preventing people from making legal backups of their material, and they have been known to damage personal property by breaking CD players, car stereos, Apple Macs and so forth. Record labels have been legally challenged over these "copy-protected CD's" by consumers and have been found to be in the wrong by the courts, yet they carry on using them because they can afford to.

Let's also mention attempts to sue girls as young as 12 and old ladies of 66 for 'copyright infringement', pricing these people out of court and often into bankruptcy.

All for the sake of protecting copyright, or rather potential profits, which they can't prove they would ever receive or 'deserve' anyway.

You've expressed a desire for karma to come into effect against 'pirates', but if anyone is in need of a little evidence of karma, it's the labels behind these filthy tricks and propaganda.

i don't agree with all of RIAA's practices, dont get me wrong. im not even going to try and defend the RIAA on particular situations. but quite simply it comes down to, no ones forcing anyone to get music. its a luxury, and they can put any price they want on it, not because they are right, but because they have the legal authority. we are just consumers, and if we don't want to buy it, then we shouldn't. but that doesn't mean pirating music is in anyway right, or that its making a positive stand.

one thing we need to realize is that the sole act of pirating music will never change things for the better for consumers. it makes sense to us to take a stand and demand lower prices on cds. but these companies, they don't have souls. they will simply compensate financially in any way possible. and as long as piracy is as prevalent as it is today, prices aren't going to go down. thats not to say prices would go down if piracy stopped either, lol. so the situation just plain sucks. again i dont want to sound preachy, do what you will, just don't lie to yourself(<- im not talking directly to you here laivesse). imo thats more important than any product.

 

[SubKamran]

Good, damn the RIAA, corporate blowjobs. :thumbs:

 

[Laivasse]

I don't think I'm lying to myself in the slightest (edit- okay, I understand that wasn't directed at me now). You seem to be taking the absolutist view that because the law is on their side these companies can do what they like in terms of prices and business practices or whatever.

Don't forget that law is a man-made thing, and the RIAA and it's clones are in such a position of wealth and power that they can attempt to influence the creation of even more law to strengthen their position. As I've said, the copyright laws that the RIAA is currently using to wage its campaign were not envisaged to protect the profits of massive corporations, but more to protect the rights of individuals when creating material that they wanted to stamp and preserve as their own. Such laws, as they initially existed, were a force for innovation as they prevented people ripping ideas off of eachother, but now they are being used as a tool by the RIAA to strengthen the stranglehold they already have over the music industry, and as such are working towards the opposite ends they to which they were conceived. I don't think blind respect of the law is something that should be encouraged when the system is so obviously being abused in this sort of situation.

Currently the only thing keeping the RIAA & co. in the right in this particular battle are some words in a statute book which could be changed with a few strokes of a pen. It is clear to me that a law which routinely criminalises millions of music-listeners for simply listening to music, and the main benefit of which nowadays is just to satisfy multi-million dollar business with no real justification behind their lobbying, is a law which has become irrelevant to society and needs rewriting in some manner. However, those penstrokes in the statute book can easily be prevented by the massive wealth of the companies who don't want to see the law reenvisaged.

How did music first become a product, upon which it was possible to build an industry? By the simple fact that there was only one way to get it; by buying it (or waiting in vain for the radio to play something you liked). This kind of environment bred the whole idea of 'making it big and becoming a rock star', and led to a sense of entitlement on the part of artists and labels in the sense that they thought they should be able to put out anything and be reimbursed in some fashion. Not on the basis of quality, but simply because effort had gone into the making of a product, and because people had no choice but to pay if they wanted to hear more of it. Becoming a musician came to mean that you were just aiming for a very posh job in massive company, one which would employ you only if it saw enough profit in you.

As bitter a pill as it may be for the RIAA to swallow, the marketplace has evolved, and technology has evolved, and music is no longer just something you have to listen frustratedly to the radio or pay £16 pounds a CD for. This evolution cannot be reversed. Like it or not, music has become something which people can choose to pay for or not based on its quality or their willingness to support the artist - the same labels who grew fat from their monopoly are seeing their 'product' turn back into 'art', a much less lucrative proposition. Of course this frightens them and angers them and they attack the new breed of 'thieves' as a result. However, it should be obvious from the sales figures I posted that the injection of consumer choice and freedom back into music has far from threatened the music industry, and that file-sharing and the music industry are for the moment capable of co-existing, even flourishing simultaneously. As such, there is NO NEED for the demonisation of mp3-trading such as which occurs at the moment, spurred on by propaganda from big business as it is.

You claim that they have a right to charge what they like for their product and that as consumers all we can do in protest is refuse to buy - 'the sole act of pirating music will never change things for the better for consumers', you say, but it has already forced labels to diversify and offer downloads for sale, etc. The marketplace has seen fundamental changes that have questioned the relevance of the labels' very existence, or at least questioned the massively strong position they hold. It would be better for those labels if they were prudent - polite, even - and stopped trying to criminalise half of their customers, and instead gave thanks that people are still willing to buy from them when they no longer have to.

Instead the labels just carry on battering people over the head with the one thing still on their side - the law - in the hope that they can use fear to erase the power that the internet has given to consumers.

People still continue to argue against mp3-trading on moral grounds, even though there is no proof that artists are losing money. As I have said before - please, everyone, make a distinction between morality and law, because laws are sometimes propped up by a mountain of money instead of just good intentions.

 

[poseyjmac]

i think music being available on the internet to buy was not a result of piracy, but rather natural progression of business. but its impossible to prove either way really. but CD prices have not gone down since piracy has become popular, if anything, it has made prices go up or it has caused artists to put less good songs on their cds to save them for another cd.

but when you say 'there is no proof that artists are losing money', it shows that you aren't seeing the more important picture.

first, yea, most bands don't see a lot of sales from cds but some do. U2 has a deal where they get a nice chunk of cd sales, so yes from those pirating their cds, U2 is not getting that money. but also, if i steal a plasma TV from best buy, can you prove to me on this forum that they actually lost any money from it? or even lost the TV?

and finally, you only talk about the artists when deciding whats fair(which you can't really do anyway). but what about the everyday workers in the record label that don't make big bucks from concerts or are not CEOs? where does their money come from? it starts at the top, but if you are screwing over the top, anything can happen to them. layoffs, cuts in wages. maybe, just maybe if there was less piracy, one of the higher ups might see the extra funds and expand the business opening up new jobs for people. maybe even a new job for one of us. thats the whole picture im talking about. its the whole picture that many try and forget about as they download music.

 

[Laivasse]

i think music being available on the internet to buy was not a result of piracy, but rather natural progression of business. but its impossible to prove either way really. but CD prices have not gone down since piracy has become popular, if anything, it has made prices go up or it has caused artists to put less good songs on their cds to save them for another cd.

As I've said, the marketplace has changed. If a CD costs even more in today's environment, people will be even less likely to buy it, because they have more options in terms of being able to hear it. However I don't see the logic that mp3-trading has forced prices up - as I've shown, CD album sales in the UK were at a record high for 2 years in a row from 2003 & 2004. Why would prices need to go up? They have already increased faster than inflation over here.

Also, if artists are cynically rationing the quality of the music they put on CD now, the increased choice that the internet has given consumers will mean that those artists will be judged upon that in the long run. This cannot be anything but a good thing for music, since it will be the artists who are seen to put out blinding CDs with no filler tracks who will float to the top.

but when you say 'there is no proof that artists are losing money', it shows that you aren't seeing the more important picture.

first, yea, most bands don't see a lot of sales from cds but some do. U2 has a deal where they get a nice chunk of cd sales, so yes from those pirating their cds, U2 is not getting that money. but also, if i steal a plasma TV from best buy, can you prove to me on this forum that they actually lost any money from it? or even lost the TV? .

It would be obvious - the store would have evidence that they once owned the TV in the form of receipts, etc. and the TV would no longer be there - it would be in your hands. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, you can't prove that they lost any potential sales through your theft since you can't ever be certain that they would have sold the TV, however that is being pedantic.

To be more serious, yours is a bad analogy, and one used quite often in attacking mp3-trading. To download an mp3 is not to take a material object from someone's hands so that they no longer possess it. It is a duplication of information so that 2 people share it where once only 1 did. Nevertheless that information differs in substance and presentation from the final article you would get if you purchased it on CD. For mp3-trading to be shown to be a harmful phenomenon to sales it would have to be proven that this sharing of information results in people being significantly less likely to purchase the final perfected form on CD. That proof is not forthcoming - on the contrary, millions of people are sharing music over the net, and hundreds of millions of albums are being sold, in increasing numbers.

More importantly, aside from being a phenomenon that poses no clear threat to the music industry, it is an unstoppable one. That is where you miss the point here:

and finally, you only talk about the artists when deciding whats fair(which you can't really do anyway). but what about the everyday workers in the record label that don't make big bucks from concerts or are not CEOs? where does their money come from? it starts at the top, but if you are screwing over the top, anything can happen to them. layoffs, cuts in wages. maybe, just maybe if there was less piracy, one of the higher ups might see the extra funds and expand the business opening up new jobs for people. maybe even a new job for one of us. thats the whole picture im talking about. its the whole picture that many try and forget about as they download music.

For a start you say you can't decide what's fair, and then you seem to imply that loss of money for the music industry (which isn't even occurring) isn't fair on labels. Fairness is beside the point - as I said the world is not obliged to ensure labels make money. Your 'whole picture' is only half the picture. The market place has changed so that distribution - a huge part of the reason for the existence of labels in the first place - has become drastically less important. That is a tough break for the labels, but THAT is the real whole picture. They have to adapt their role so that they are still relevant to the industry. It is not the responsibility of music lovers to ensure that the rich people in charge of the music biz continue to make massive amounts of money simply because "that's the way it's always been".

Nevertheless, labels ARE still making massive amounts of money, more money than they ever have been, despite the fact that they would have us believe the music industry is in the throes of death. So it's hard to see where their complaint lies, really.

 

[Dalamari]

If you want to be famous, expect people to get your work HOWEVER they please

Nuff said

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I buy all my music and haven't pirated anything since 2003.

The RIAA still deserves all this if these allegations are true though. And for just generally being assholish.

 

[Laivasse]

I buy all my music and haven't pirated anything since 2003.

The RIAA still deserves all this if these allegations are true though. And for just generally being assholish.

I buy all my music too. Mainly because I appreciate the fuller package of lyrics, imagery and atmos that comes with a CD, but also because I appreciate the music and want the band to get my support. I believe this should be a choice though, and if I wanted to possess just an imperfect digital copy of an album without showing my support for a band, then that's what I would do - this to me is the distinction between an artist receiving my patronage, and a businessman receiving his wages from me. I don't buy anything from RIAA associated labels. It just so happens that I don't like anything on RIAA labels, so that's nice.

I do have a few albums in mp3 only - about 3. These were things that were literally impossible for me to get hold of. I investigated and found that there was no way for me to buy them, so I downloaded them, and I tell anyone who I think might like the bands about the album. Mp3 trading has allowed these bands to exist with global followings, whereas the RIAA campaign would have them crushed to nothing. Here is where you will find your true suffering artists, not sitting in a label exec's office agonising over why they didn't sell a million of their last album instead of 650,000.

 

[TheSomeone]

that justification doesn't stand up as its defeated easily, the 'if this then that' excuse has been proven wrong countless times even on this forum. but ill reiterate.

the fact is the theoretical situation where you don't download music is not possible right now, being that its so easy to download music today. the only way for your statement to be tested would be to live in a world where downloading music was not possible. as this is not possible, your if statement is not accurate because it can never be proven. as we know, our environment has an affect on our actions and you can't accurately gauge what your actions would be like in such a dramatically different situation.

For your info, you didn't prove anything wrong, you just proved his statement irrefutable

Congrats on destroying your own argument.

Plus, learn the meaning of "theoretical." A theoretical situation doesn't care wether it's possible or not, that's the whole point, it's purely theoretical.

Lastly, there is a world where music couldn't be downloaded for free, it's called "10 years ago." I'd like to see some statistics on music sales, untill then, I'll hold my opinion.

 

[poseyjmac]

As I've said, the marketplace has changed. If a CD costs even more in today's environment, people will be even less likely to buy it, because they have more options in terms of being able to hear it. However I don't see the logic that mp3-trading has forced prices up - as I've shown, CD album sales in the UK were at a record high for 2 years in a row from 2003 & 2004. Why would prices need to go up? They have already increased faster than inflation over here.

but can you prove that the records set in 2003 and 2004 would not have been more dramatic had it not been for piracy?

see this falls under the, 'if they get the amount of $ that I deem right, then all is well'. but no consumer has the power to say that and it mean anything.

Also, if artists are cynically rationing the quality of the music they put on CD now, the increased choice that the internet has given consumers will mean that those artists will be judged upon that in the long run. This cannot be anything but a good thing for music, since it will be the artists who are seen to put out blinding CDs with no filler tracks who will float to the top.

yup

It would be obvious - the store would have evidence that they once owned the TV in the form of receipts, etc. and the TV would no longer be there - it would be in your hands. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, you can't prove that they lost any potential sales through your theft since you can't ever be certain that they would have sold the TV, however that is being pedantic.

To be more serious, yours is a bad analogy, and one used quite often in attacking mp3-trading. To download an mp3 is not to take a material object from someone's hands so that they no longer possess it. It is a duplication of information so that 2 people share it where once only 1 did. Nevertheless that information differs in substance and presentation from the final article you would get if you purchased it on CD. For mp3-trading to be shown to be a harmful phenomenon to sales it would have to be proven that this sharing of information results in people being significantly less likely to purchase the final perfected form on CD. That proof is not forthcoming - on the contrary, millions of people are sharing music over the net, and hundreds of millions of albums are being sold, in increasing numbers.

no actually you just focused on the wrong part of the analogy. it has nothing to do with my trying to equate piracy to stealing. i know the difference, and i never use that argument. ugh. forget it. its too much trouble to try and explain this part, its not very important anyway.

For a start you say you can't decide what's fair, and then you seem to imply that loss of money for the music industry (which isn't even occurring) isn't fair on labels. Fairness is beside the point - as I said the world is not obliged to ensure labels make money. Your 'whole picture' is only half the picture. The market place has changed so that distribution - a huge part of the reason for the existence of labels in the first place - has become drastically less important. That is a tough break for the labels, but THAT is the real whole picture. They have to adapt their role so that they are still relevant to the industry. It is not the responsibility of music lovers to ensure that the rich people in charge of the music biz continue to make massive amounts of money simply because "that's the way it's always been".

i don't decide whats fair, im saying the companies decide whats fair. they set the prices, so they call the shots. if you perceive what they do as unfair, well thats irrelevant, as you do not own them, you are just a consumer. more importantly, its unfair to them for you to get their product for free, not to mention illegal.

Nevertheless, labels ARE still making massive amounts of money, more money than they ever have been, despite the fact that they would have us believe the music industry is in the throes of death. So it's hard to see where their complaint lies, really.

again with this flawed logic. it doesn't matter if records are being set. that doesn't justify taking things unlawfully from a company. it never does. you do a unit of work, and you deserve a unit of payment. whether you are working at a fast food restaurant, or you are bill gates. neither is more or less deserved. piracy cheats people out of this.

 

[poseyjmac]

For your info, you didn't prove anything wrong, you just proved his statement irrefutable

actually i proved that his statement cannot be proven. doing so also proved his statement of what he would do invalid.

Lastly, there is a world where music couldn't be downloaded for free, it's called "10 years ago." I'd like to see some statistics on music sales, untill then, I'll hold my opinion.

my god, man, you totally missed it. the point was the cyberpitz of today cannot be in a world where there is no downloading of music. as long as thats true, we cannot prove that the cyberpitz of today would hold out and not buy music CDs. focus, man focus. egad. i recommend dropping this as its not a battle you can win.

 

[TheSomeone]

actually i proved that his statement cannot be proven.

No, you also proved it irrefutable. You can't prove wrong something that can't be proven right.

doing so also proved his statement of what he would do invalid.

But not wrong.

my god, man, you totally missed it. the point was the cyberpitz of today cannot be in a world where there is no downloading of music. as long as thats true, we cannot prove that the cyberpitz of today would hold out and not buy music CDs.

And you can't prove the opposite either, so basically that's a pointless argument, let's move on.

focus, man focus. egad. i recommend dropping this as its not a battle you can win.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself considering your ability to turn the entire forums against you.

 

[poseyjmac]

uhh. his statement was WRONG because it cant be proven. what part of that do you not understand?

he stated what he would do in a situation that cannot happen. he was wrong for saying this. i proved that this was so. end of story. you're just trying to stir up shit for the hell of it, but you really have nothing to say, so just stop posting until you have something to contribute.

 

[TheSomeone]

he stated what he would do in a situation that cannot happen. he was wrong for saying this. i proved that this was so. end of story. you're just trying to stir up shit for the hell of it, but you really have nothing to say, so just stop posting until you have something to contribute.

Yes, I do very much have something to say, and that is you can't prove he was wrong, you have no idea if he would have bought that music if he couldn't download it. You can prove that he can't prove he's right, which you did, but you didn't prove that he would have bought that music if he couldn't download it, making him wrong.

I want to see proof that music sales have gone significantly down in the past 10 years, untill then, my opinion is that the RIAA is being ridiculous.

 

[poseyjmac]

Yes, I do very much have something to say, and that is you can't prove he was wrong, you have no idea if he would have bought that music if he couldn't download it. You can prove that he can't prove he's right, which you did, but you didn't prove that he would have bought that music if he couldn't download it, making him wrong.

you're still missing it.

hes only wrong for assuming he wouldn't buy any CDs. whether or not in this fake world he did or did not buy cds is irrelevant. but lets say for a second we know for a fact that he wasn't going to buy any CDs. its still a false assumption, because he didn't know for sure. the fact is its a false assumption to begin with. thats where he is wrong, and nowhere else. do you understand now?

 

[TheSomeone]

Okay, w'ere on completely different planes of reality again, forget about it.

 

[Nat Turner]

Okay, w'ere on completely different planes of reality again, forget about it.

You know how when we dream, our brain is interpreting random electrical signals and is trying to make sense of them?

That's kind of how poseyjmac is when he's awake.

 

[Laivasse]

paraphrase=*fair fair fair, did the work, earned the dough, etc etc*

I'm repeating myself again, but it's not me going on about what's fair, it's you. I've already said 'fairness' is beside the point.

You're the one continually claiming that mp3-trading is 'cheating' labels out of profit they 'deserve', despite there being no evidence to support this. But since it can't be proved otherwise, even though there is more evidence otherwise, it is just assumed by everyone to be the case. Prove that I'm cheating the music industry out of money by trading mp3's - the evidence should be easy enough to find if it's so obvious, right? Or whoops, maybe the claim that file-sharing hurts sales is baseless? If you want to screw consumers' rights all over the place on the basis of profits you might have made, then you need evidence. Sod your hunches. While you're searching for that evidence, how about you drop the corporate line about cheating and piracy.

It is YOU (and the labels) who would like to define the system of making music as "one unit of work, one unit of payment". Everyone has forgotten that music is one of the arts. The reason it came to be viewed as a valid means of making a lot of money is because the means of distribution from the artist to the populace used to be highly regulated by labels who were able to write their own cheque. With the advent of the internet, that model is redundant. The market has changed; labels are now less important, but they are trying to preserve their importance by screwing consumers using the money they made when they were essential, under the cover of a law which criminalises needlessly and exists, in its current form, mainly to protect their profits.

Story:
I supply the UK with apples, because it has no apples. I don't make them or grow them, I just ship them and set the price. I am the only supplier, and charge a bomb. Seeds from these apples create trees and Brits start munching apples without resorting solely to me. I could be doomed. However, it turns out people still come to me and pay my stupid prices cos they appreciate the efforts going on back in the orchards (in oooh, let's say, Norway), or they want that Laiv stamp of approval, or they want the apples from the original orchard where it all started.

I could claim that everyone in the UK is criminal for maliciously duplicating my apples. I could use my vast wealth to harangue the government for support.

Or I could count my stinking blessings that I'm still making a ton of money despite the change in the nature of apple-selling, and just shut up.

Whatever I decide to do, I send the guys back in the orchard about 10p, but it's okay because they appreciate what I'm doing for 'em.

 

[poseyjmac]

"hes only wrong for assuming he wouldn't buy any CDs."

this is all there is to it. what part of this do you not understand? you know how people say assume makes an ass out of you and me? thats because assumptions are many a time wrong. he made one. and he was indeed wrong about it. how simpler can this be?

 

[Nat Turner]

A) There is nothing ethically wrong with simply copying a file, in my book.

B) I cannot be caught using my methods

C) Therefore, I should download music. The RIAA can kiss my ass.

 

[poseyjmac]

I'm repeating myself again

its not important if you don't want the money that is fairly entitled to you in life, thats your deal. but some DO, and who are you to deny them that?

there is a limited amount of things that can be proven in a forum, and even if i could prove the impossible, pirates would just blank it out of their minds and keep pirating anyway. so whats the point?

know what a pirate never wants? he never wants his brainwashing to fade away, because that would mean fessing up to realities he would feel bad about. but keep thinking what you do doesn't affect anyone. but if you ever realize that something you earned was not given to you and taken by someone, that person won't feel bad because he'll justify it. and if he can do that, then its alright.

 

[poseyjmac]

A) There is nothing ethically wrong with simply copying a file, in my book.

if you were a software developer that worked for 2 years on a program to sell. and you sold it for a reasonable $50 when other competitors prices were around $200, do you think it would be ethically wrong for someone to make copies of it and give it around?

 

[Laivasse]

I don't know, this is total derailment...you're accusing me of being brainwashed, yet you're the one whose argument seems to be solely based on a kind of "AAARGH! THEY'RE EVIL!" mindset. Examine yourself.

Maybe file-trading does affect the industry. There is no evidence for it, but maybe it does. If it does, then it doesn't affect it enough in the UK at least to prevent albums selling in record amounts for 2 years in a row, during a time when file-sharing is still massively popular. And I think that's a shame. I wish file-sharing would bring the music industry TO IT'S KNEES! I HATE the music industry, something that may not have come across before because I've been trying to set my argument out evenly, something you don't seem capable of doing for your own.

So 'keep thinking what you do doesn't affect anyone'? I wish it did affect the music industry, I wish it bankrupted the whole ****ing cesspit, but it doesn't. It doesn't even dent it.

Note: if I could make great music, and give it out free, I would. If more people made music to make music instead of making music to make money, well...NO! shit, I nearly made an irrefutable, unprovable statement there, I daren't do that!

 

[poseyjmac]

I don't know, this is total derailment...you're accusing me of being brainwashed, yet you're the one whose argument seems to be solely based on a kind of "AAARGH! THEY'RE EVIL!" mindset. Examine yourself.

not evil. just ignorant.

If it does, then it doesn't affect it enough in the UK at least to prevent albums selling in record amounts for 2 years in a row

again you fall back on this argument. but for all we know they could have made double that if piracy didn't exist, so that argument really doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't even dent it.

uh oh. you just made a statement that you can't back up with evidence.

Note: if I could make great music, and give it out free, I would. If more people made music to make music instead of making music to make money, well...NO! shit, I nearly made an irrefutable, unprovable statement there, I daren't do that!

uh oh #2. you know what, you just pulled what cyberpitz pulled a few pages back. you made an assumption that you would do a certain thing in a universe that does not exist. fact is you don't know what you would do for sure if you had that ability when it came down to it in the same way cyberpitz wouldn't know for sure what he would do in a world where piracy did not exist. its a false assumption. im going to watch lost. ill check the thread tomorrow.

 

[Laivasse]

that argument really doesn't mean anything

...except contradict the industry's biggest propaganda point against mp3-trading, the point that gets mentioned in all the news reports about file-sharers being sued - the idea that it damages the music industry. The music industry is clearly not damaged, by any stretch of the imagination. If you say it is - prove it. When their very own sales figures suggests that the industry is thriving, shouldn't the onus should be on the industry to back up their own claim? Instead they rely on fanatics like you to spread your ...ahem, 'argument' about the gut-feeling-of-unfairness, "think about the labels, you're not seeing the whole picture, self-deception!" thing.

The rest = more of your pseudo-philosophical assbabble. Excuse me, I'm off to cry a river over the poor, shivering record labels.

 

[Nat Turner]

if you were a software developer that worked for 2 years on a program to sell. and you sold it for a reasonable $50 when other competitors prices were around $200, do you think it would be ethically wrong for someone to make copies of it and give it around?

No, not really. Which is also why I wouldn't be a software developer, if I couldn't expect many profits for this reason.

 

[poseyjmac]

...except contradict the industry's biggest propaganda point against mp3-trading, the point that gets mentioned in all the news reports about file-sharers being sued - the idea that it damages the music industry.

yes, but why should i care? i don't subscribe to this belief. my point is it does make an impact. i never said its the downfall of the music industry. no doubt the music business is thriving. if you would drop your anti-poseyjmac sentiment you might be able to think rationally and realize that we don't disagree on everything.

The music industry is clearly not damaged, by any stretch of the imagination. If you say it is - prove it. When their very own sales figures suggests that the industry is thriving, shouldn't the onus should be on the industry to back up their own claim? Instead they rely on fanatics like you to spread your ...ahem, 'argument' about the gut-feeling-of-unfairness, "think about the labels, you're not seeing the whole picture, self-deception!" thing.

i understand where you're coming from. its easy to not feel sorry big companies, and not see them as a group of people, but one entity. but someone getting a product without paying for it is not fair to many PEOPLE. simple as that. and the pirates way of thinking is 'better them than me'

 

[poseyjmac]

No, not really. Which is also why I wouldn't be a software developer, if I couldn't expect many profits for this reason.

well, no. actually saying no would be a false assumption since you really can't know what its like to be a software developer. remember the whole deal about cyberpitz's statement of 'i would never buy it anyway' and how that's a false assumption as it could never be proven whether or not he would buy a cd? same kinda thing. but thats actually not the reason i asked the question, heh.

now what if you were applying for a job that you would really like at a very well-known company and the salary offered was making 15 zazangas an hour(lets assume 15 zazangas is a nice amount of money, not a crazy amount, but about average entry level amount appropriate for the position you would be in) would you be happy with this?

 

[Dan]

The problem with music is that it is information (nowadays atleast). It doesn't cost anything more to make a thousand reproduction or to send it to Taiwan. As such, "stealing it" isn't the same as stealing a loaf of bread or stealing a car because the seller doesn't necessarily lose anything. You're just not buying anything from them. Personally, I think this means that the music industry needs to evolve to deal with a different market. You can't mass market a product anymore that is based around keeping information because information can be disseminated everywhere instantly. Essentially when they sue somebody for downloading music, it's like sueing somebody for not buying your product. In one sense you're telling these people that you want them to be your customers, because you want them to buy things from you instead of dloading, but you're also telling them that you don't like them very much because they have enjoyed your music without buying it from you.
But from the record companies perspective, not buying anything and not buying anything but then downloading their song has the same impact on them. So essentially they are trying to dictate the market to their customers. Might work in Communist Russia, but I believe it won't work in a capitalist market.

By no means is the music industry dying though. People still love concerts, and some people will always want to have the cd.

Neither does this mean that start up music is hard pressed either. If anything I'd say that mp3 sharing would help small bands. These bands aren't usually making a lot of money off of published cd sales. They're usually touring and selling t-shirts and cds made by independent publishers. Take a look at Montreal which has one of the hottest music scenese in North America these days. Part of the reason is because it doesn't have the juggernaut recording industries that a city like New York has. That means that small bands play in local bars and the good bands rise to the top on their own merit, not by hooking up with record labels.

edited in a bit more of my thoughts

 

[Laivasse]

You pretty much summed up most of my thoughts, and more succinctly than I could manage.