"Dealing" With Casual Piracy

There is absolutely no way to justify breaking well-known laws. You can claim up and down the economics of it, or how it should be different, but the fact is that it isn't different, these are the rules we have, and people are willfully breaking them.

If you want to be able to freely share music, I'm fine with that. Obtain the copyrights. Change copyright law. Create your own label which guarantees an open use. You're more than welcome to do all these things.

The far better solution to the RIAA is not to steal from the RIAA, but to render them obsolete through competition.

Going 60 in a 55 may not be an egregious offense, but it still is an offense nonetheless. I have no sympathy for people who get caught in piracy and I have no criticism for the RIAA to run its business model as it sees fit. If I ever own a business, I would hope to be able to similarly run it as I see fit and have the law as the protection against people committing offenses against me, regardless of if I choose to pursue a case or not and regardless of if someone can make a claim that offenses against me are not harmful.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Skexis

Until perspectives change and the speed limit is raised or lowered depending on the public need thereof. The law and the judges that interpret it are often swung simply by the weight of popular opinion (or, if that seems cynical to you, by changing expectations made possible by advances in technology.)

Do you really think there is a public need for free music? That's not a guaranteed right, the ability to hear music created by others.

There is no common law remedy to copyright law, these are mostly things that are established by federal statute, and the courts mostly fill in the gaps. Thus, you're not going to get out of breaking the law simply by saying that a lot of people think you should be able to. There is nothing unconstitutional about copyright law. Which means get your legislature to change it before you break it or understand that you are bearing the risk.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I didn't read it, mostly because it was really long. I just went and looked at the conclusion.

I mean...it doesn't matter to me if the proposal is better or not. The RIAA is free to contract with its musicians as it sees fit. Independent labels are free to do that if they want, of course.

I mean, it probably has merit. They could do nothing but unrestrictive licenses and succeed.

But what would be different between having labels that have restrictive licenses and ones that have unrestrictive? I think what is lost in this is that all artists do not want their music freely shared, some will want their music only sold by the copy and retaining the copyrights tightly. The RIAA is restrictive, but artists don't have to sign with them and some artists may enjoy the protections that the RIAA can provide through brute force.

The market will push what labels and musicians do, there's no need to force anything.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Cal

There's a timeless social need for music as a non-commodity, which is why I find it so hard to understand how people can defend the notion that if you create music and get it out there, you have some sort of 'right to profit'. A far more sensitive and reciprocal model for the future of music commerce would be that creators/suppliers have an opportunity to profit - if they can sufficiently impress the listener to open their wallets. This is exactly what a technology like the net is providing right now, but everyone just wants to have a sook.

So, what, musicians are the only people who can't decide how they get paid?

Let me ask you this. So you go in to work today. Your boss calls you in, rips up your employment contract, and tells you that you are going to get paid what he feels like paying you. He's not going to tell you why he's paying that much, he's not going to tell you what he's going to pay you tomorrow. Or even if he is going to pay you tomorrow.

So you go work really hard for 8 hours because you feel that the harder you work, the more you'll get paid. On your way out, your boss takes out his wallet and hands you a $20 for the day's work.

I assume you are OK with this business model.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Why do you care what they do though?

Obviously, and this can't be said enough, it works for musicians because they have options. Many choose to stick with the Big Four despite all the things that everyone says are big and bad.

So if musicians keep on keepin' on, and you admit that filesharers are committing crimes, then what do you care if the RIAA decides to go after those people or not?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Sounds like something we've got already.

Welcome to America. :P

I also haven't seen any National Days of Protest regarding the RIAA.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?