RIAA attacks internet radio

[Glen.Nogami]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/0930245&from=rss

Wow. Just...wow.

Are these people against music in general, or what?

[LeCynthia]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/0930245&from=rss

Wow. Just...wow.

Are these people against music in general, or what?

They are against any music that doesn't put money in their pockets.

[Walk The Line]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?

[alfaniner]

I just got the first glimmer of the death of newspapers as well. Just got a notice from my paper that they now have the full version online for subscribers. I suppose they figure they can save production and printing costs if they can get so many people to read it only online.

[LeCynthia]

I just got the first glimmer of the death of newspapers as well. Just got a notice from my paper that they now have the full version online for subscribers. I suppose they figure they can save production and printing costs if they can get so many people to read it only online.

I haven't purchased a local paper since I found I can not only read all the stories online, but the comics, too, and all without ads. Plus (a big plus) I can respond/discuss/comment on any story I read. Plus I don't have newspaper all over my house. Plus they have more content online such as videos and pictures. Since I cancelled my subscription I'm not sure how they are making money off of me but more power to them.

[bigred]

RIAA = music nazi POSs. Some years back I downloaded a bunch of music and don't feel the slightest bit guilty. I wonder if they'll bust a little girl for downloading "Happy Birthday" again, what a smooth move that was :rollleyes:

PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.

[Glen.Nogami]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?

I believe that this is a sort of personal vendetta between the RIAA and the Internet.

As for the RIAA in general, supply and demand is all well and good, but when your supply is 20$ per CD, people are going to look elsewhere, and more supply will arise. Learn to compete, please.

[Morrigan]

They are against any music that doesn't put money in their pockets.

Quoted for truth.

[geni]

Quoted for truth.

It isn't true though. For very solid legal reasons they have no problems with music that is produced independantly of the various companies they represent and don't care if those people make money off their music or not.

What they do have problems with is people useing the music of thier members without paying up (not quite true but the exceptions are pretty narrow).

If the radio stations feel that the royalty fees are too high they are free to get music from other sources. Say unsigned bands and pay them in studio time. Go the whole way and set up your own internet only record lable and set your own royalty rates.

[geni]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how this would be beneficial to the RIAA if they raise royalty rates and put all these internet radio stations out of business? If this ends up putting most stations out of business, won't that cut off the revenue from those stations, which even though they pay less in royalties, may make up for it in volume of stations that play their songs (more songs played=more royalties paid)?

Posibilities are:

The RIAA thinks that most of the stations can afford it
The RIAA thinks without the stations people will buy from other sources
The RIAA thinks that the extra cash from those that are left will cover the cost of those lost
The RIAA thinks that sations will find new income streams to allow them to afford the new costs
The RIAA is clearing away the current companies in order to allow the record lables to start their own stations (ok I'm not sure that one is legal)

[geni]

RIAA = music nazi POSs.

No they have not tried to systematicaly get rid of all music by jews.



Some years back I downloaded a bunch of music and don't feel the slightest bit guilty.


Fortunetly our legal system is not based around what people feel guity for doing.


I wonder if they'll bust a little girl for downloading "Happy Birthday" again, what a smooth move that was :rollleyes:

Given the ammount Warner Music Group paid for the rights to "Happy Birthday To You" (about $5 million) it is not unreasonable for them to protect thier investment.


PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.

Not really. Junk mail will fund the postal system for a long time to come and newspapers are increaseing becomeing an expensive form of vanity publishing.

[bigred]

I believe that this is a sort of personal vendetta between the RIAA and the Internet.

As for the RIAA in general, supply and demand is all well and good, but when your supply is 20$ per CD, people are going to look elsewhere, and more supply will arise. Learn to compete, please.I think they have, somewhat (if only grudgingly). Last I checked, CD prices were down.

[Morrigan]

It isn't true though.
:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists". Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html) (filesharing does not reduce CD sales), but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not (http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html) the artists'. For feck's sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:

[LeCynthia]

PS newspapers and the postal system are 2 things I'm amazed are holding up as well as they are.

I think eBay and online purchasing will keep the post office going for a while with just package delivery. But unless they do something to equal Fed Ex Ground or UPS even that is in question.

The RIAA needs to realize you don't need a physical medium to move music anymore. One of the problems is an "album" usually has one or two songs you love, a couple that are okay, and one or two you will never listen to or simply dislike. Downloading means you get exactly what you want with no wasted space. Single song downloads on a pay site is the way to go, at least I think they are starting to see that. As far as stopping the free sharing, that will be a harder issue to solve.

I think in the future an artist won't make the big bucks on selling songs, it will be in the shows and live concerts. They will still get royalties from radio stations (who in turn "advertise" the song for them in exchange for selling other ads to air around playing the songs) and TV (see: radio stations only with videos) and if the people like the songs then they will come to the concerts. If an artist is good, more airplay, more royalties, more people come to the concert and anything made off of actual song sales to the masses is just extra, otherwise just expect it to circulate.

Personally, I think it's a dilemma only for the mega rich. "I only made 24.4 Million dollars on my last album instead of 24.6 Million. Damn free file sharing!"

[bigred]

:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists". Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html) (filesharing does not reduce CD sales), but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not (http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html) the artists'. For feck's sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:Wow somebody else gets it. Thanks.

[bigred]

Not to digress too much, but the saddest thing is all this is that music to a larger and larger extent has become about the "packaging" and the "show," not the music itself. Tragic.

[Solus]

Just move the servers outside of the US and boardcast elsewhere, is my answer. If the station is at all profitable it would be worth the trouble.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

When your business is to use the RIAA's product, you have to live by the RIAA's rules. The RIAA does not own all of the music in the world.

These Internet radio stations are more than welcome to broadcast non-RIAA music for lower royalty rates. The RIAA is well within their rights to charge $1,000,000 in royalty fees per song if they choose to.

I say give the RIAA as much rope as possible. Let's see what happens to them in the long run.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Given the ammount Warner Music Group paid for the rights to "Happy Birthday To You" (about $5 million) it is not unreasonable for them to protect thier investment.

You are one of those individuals who will support anything that have the label "legal" on it. Say it becomes legal to have slaves again. You would have zero problems tolerating it... because its not unreasonable to protect your rights to have them.

This is, of course, if you are not the slaved one.

And seriously, the world is more than what laws account for. Laws are made by minorities in power, but in the end they are merely opinions. Its just a matter of time for RIAA to become obsolete.

[geni]

:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.

Make some music indepent of the RIAA. Note the lack of court injunctions filed against you.


Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant.


Given the number of different models employed by RIAA memebers that seems unlikely.


They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists".

The RIAA have no dealings with artists. The RIAA deals with record lables and their shareholders. PLCs have a legal duty to maximise profits.


Their claims that free music has harmed the careers of their "artists" has been shown to be complete bunk (http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html) (filesharing does not reduce CD sales),


It is imposible to prove that either way.


but that's not stopping them because most of the money goes in THEIR pockets, not (http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html) the artists'. For feck's sake, they claim that backing up your own CDs is not fair use! :rolleyes:

They may well have a point. Fair use wasn't really built around the idea of use by individuals. Fair dealing was to a degree (uk version anyway indian version less so) so you get different results depending on the legal system. The Gowers review in should clear the issue up in the UK.

[geni]

You are one of those individuals who will support anything that have the label "legal" on it.

Not at all but I do understand that respect for property rights is one of the more important factors in keeping a civilisation stable.

[geni]

Just move the servers outside of the US and boardcast elsewhere, is my answer. If the station is at all profitable it would be worth the trouble.

That would involve finding a country that is not a signitory to various international copyright conventions.

So how were you planning to host this station playing music in Iran?

[geni]

Not to digress too much, but the saddest thing is all this is that music to a larger and larger extent has become about the "packaging" and the "show," not the music itself. Tragic.

Hybridisation of different forms of entertianment is very old.

Perhaps you complain that Sullivan's work was devalued by his colaberations with Gilbert.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not at all but I do understand that respect for property rights is one of the more important factors in keeping a civilisation stable.


But this begs the question. Are current laws really "keeping the civilization stable"?

Highly debatable. Of course, the answer, to an extent, its subjective in nature, as we would have to deal with what we mean by "stable" for instance, but the point here is that blindly following the laws and the rules does not guarantee anything but the continuation of conventionalisms. This hardly reflects what makes a society to change and improve: Irreverent individuals.

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Did you know that it is sane to question the authority from time to time? ;)

[bigred]

Laws are made by minorities in power, but in the end they are merely opinions.I think "guidelines" is more accurat then "opinions" but good point.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Did you know that it is sane to question the authority from time to time? ;)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We do not need music from RIAA record labels.

In a democracy, we can vote out a ruling party if they no longer represent our ideals.
In a free market society, we vote with our wallets. If people hate the RIAA so much, the best thing they could do is to stop giving them money.

If you complain about Microsoft as you buy the latest copy of Windows, you are a hypocrite.
If you complain about the RIAA as you buy or steal one of their record label's albums, you are a hypocrite.

[bigred]

If you complain about Microsoft as you buy the latest copy of Windows, you are a hypocrite.
If you complain about the RIAA as you buy or steal one of their record label's albums, you are a hypocrite.
? Sorry, no.

hypocrite
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

If you buy Windows and talk about how great it is but secretly or elsewhere rip on it, or if you think it's great but say it's not, THAT would be hypocritical. But if you buy it - and there are many reasons other than you like it to buy it - and criticize it, that is not necessarily hypocritical by any means.

Back to RIAA: if your fav artists record on an RIAA owned (or regulated or whatever) label, you can hate RIAA but still buy it and not be a hypocrite.

Or you can download stuff for free to avoid it altogether. ;)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Back to RIAA: if your fav artists record on an RIAA owned (or regulated or whatever) label, you can hate RIAA but still buy it and not be a hypocrite.

Or you can download stuff for free to avoid it altogether. ;)
So you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how badly you want to get rid of the RIAA, while you continue to support them thereby helping them to stay in business?
Or you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how the RIAA is ripping you off, while you rip them off?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think "guidelines" is more accurat then "opinions" but good point.

Guidelines, I like that. Yes, exactly, laws are merely guidelines to show the bulk of the people what is "right" and "wrong" in the eyes of the ones in power. Is it ok to bend them? to change them?

It depends on who does it. The little law breaker goes to jail, the big one changes the law.

[Ryokan]

So, is it illegal not to bend in front of an emperor? Well, no if there are no emperors, and the last time I checked they are gone for good (in "advanced civilizations" btw).

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization? :p

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization? :p

Hi there Ryokan. ;) Well, there is also the queen. But my point remains.

[bigred]

Are you saying Japan is not an advanced civilization? :p
Now or in general? Funny I was just replying to a thread that sidetracked about their atrocities during WW II, which easily rivalled the Germans' or Russians'....

[PixyMisa]

:rolleyes: Like hell it's not.
Technological advances are making their business model irrelevant. They're grasping at straws because they are only interested in milking out as much money as they can, not because they are concerned about their "artists".

Minor correction: Technological advances have made their business model irrelevant. The reason that the RIAA is so much more aggressive than the MPAA is that the RIAA is already dead and they are just trying to grab as much cash as they can before everyone else realises this.

[bigred]

So you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how badly you want to get rid of the RIAA, while you continue to support them thereby helping them to stay in business??
1 - I never said I wanted to get rid of them per se (although the idea definitely has it's appeal). I would prefer they change how they operate instead.

2 - I can probably count the CDs I've bought in the last 10 years on one hand (and there are IMO good odds at least 1 or 2 weren't under the RIAA Nazi-watch). To say I'm "supporting them" is a severe stretch on a technicality at best.

3 - Or even that aside and to get right to the point and answer the question: no, I wouldn't.


Or you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how the RIAA is ripping you off, while you rip them off?I was kidding.

But even if I wasn't, I disagree that downloading free music (at least in my case) is ripping them off. Actually I have downloaded stuff, but it's stuff I already owned so I think legally I'm allowed to do that in that case. And if not, I should be as IMO I'm not ripping them off. If I couldn't download it, I sure as flip wouldn't go buy another copy, so they've lost no money on me.

Or even that aside and to again get right to the point and answer the question: no, I wouldn't. You're not comparing apples to apples.

[bigred]

disregard, fraggin dupe post

[geni]

Minor correction: Technological advances have made their business model irrelevant. The reason that the RIAA is so much more aggressive than the MPAA is that the RIAA is already dead and they are just trying to grab as much cash as they can before everyone else realises this.

RIAA is fairly soft compared to what getty and corbis have been getting up to of late. Strangely people don't go around calling them nazis or saying their business model is dead.

[geni]

1 - I never said I wanted to get rid of them per se (although the idea definitely has it's appeal). I would prefer they change how they operate instead.

How would you like them to operate?


But even if I wasn't, I disagree that downloading free music (at least in my case) is ripping them off. Actually I have downloaded stuff, but it's stuff I already owned so I think legally I'm allowed to do that in that case.

Nope. Try reading the terms of the lisence under which you were sold the music in the past.

[ponderingturtle]

Given the number of different models employed by RIAA memebers that seems unlikely.

And when each was introduced it was faught tooth and nail.

[shawn]

Try reading the terms of the lisence[sic] under which you were sold the music in the past.

So...do you work for the RIAA? Seriously, why would you defend their business model of suing their own customers? Even if you held a libertarian's point-of-view on the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to argue for their sake, since you'd have every confidence that the invisible hand of god...I mean, the market...would take care of everything in the end.

[geni]

So...do you work for the RIAA? Seriously, why would you defend their business model of suing their own customers?

Generaly they don't.

Of course sue anybody who uses whatever you happen to hold the IP on is hardly an unknown business model and can work quite well.


Even if you held a libertarian's point-of-view on the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to argue for their sake, since you'd have every confidence that the invisible hand of god...I mean, the market...would take care of everything in the end.

Nah just fed up with all the people who think if they wine enough copyright law wont apply to them.

You don't like the RIAA? Don't use the product's the memeber companies offer. IT's thier stuff and thus they can do whatever they darn well like with it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You don't like the RIAA? Don't use the product's the memeber companies offer. IT's thier stuff and thus they can do whatever they darn well like with it.


For that to work first you would have to buy that part about what they call "property" its really a property and it really belongs to them.

Anyway, you will tell that the holders of the truth are the ones in power, while the rest of the human kind lives in the darkness.

Kind of fun that in an skeptics forum we can find believers ;) ;)

If a human made the law, another human can change it (or ignore it, or twist it, or do whatever he wants to). Laws are a guidance system, not word of god. True, you get caught and IF you dont have the resources you pay with time in prision. But you might read my other posts in the subject, laws change, irreverent individuals change them. Talk about later, say, in 10 years. Music distribution system will be different than what we find now. Its already changing.

[geni]

For that to work first you would have to buy that part about what they call "property" its really a property and it really belongs to them.

It does.


If a human made the law, another human can change it (or ignore it, or twist it, or do whatever he wants to). Laws are a guidance system, not word of god. True, you get caught and IF you dont have the resources you pay with time in prision. But you might read my other posts in the subject, laws change, irreverent individuals change them. Talk about later, say, in 10 years. Music distribution system will be different than what we find now. Its already changing.

I've not run across any suggestion that any goverment plans to significantly liberalise copyright laws in this area.

Your stawmen may interest you I'm not sure how relivant they are to the rest of us.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your stawmen may interest you I'm not sure how relivant they are to the rest of us.


Because of your writing (staw... reliv...) I would say that it is interesting for you, and you want me to think that it isnt. :) Anyway, My guess is that you are a lawyer, and Im beyond labels. ;)

Oh, and I didnt say anything about copyright, but business and distribution models.

[geni]

, My guess is that you are a lawyer

Nope wikipedian who's got fed up of dealing with all the people who either (a) don't understand copyright law at all ot (B) can't read instructions.

I mean seriously look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner
And to get there you have to have been through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fromowner

70%+ of what comes through that system is copyvio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext isn't much better.

If you don't like copyright law elect people who will change it to something you support. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist.


Oh, and I didnt say anything about copyright, but business and distribution models.

Given the current legal system why would any company with a decent back catalogue need a distribution model?

[bigred]

Please do not feed the trolls.

[Solus]

That would involve finding a country that is not a signitory to various international copyright conventions.

So how were you planning to host this station playing music in Iran?

Do what pirate bay did then I guess or move it to China. :p

[geni]

Do what pirate bay did

Get raided by the police?

The sealand thing would never work. If there was every anything done there that seriously conflicted with UK law the authorities would step in.

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.


then I guess or move it to China. :p

China is a signitory to the berne convention

[Solus]

Get raided by the police?

The sealand thing would never work. If there was every anything done there that seriously conflicted with UK law the authorities would step in.

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.

China is a signitory to the berne convention

You don't know much about China do you? :p China can be signatory to whatever convention there is. That's paper on though. The key is ENFORCEMENT China does not enforce that law, therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I have no idea where "sealand" is but if it's far from the UK, I think they would be overstepping their bounds striking at an independent location more or less. Besides it's the like a hydra.Those who think they can stop "piracy" have no clue.

[Solus]

That reminds me I need to get around to find out what the copyright status of their logo really is.
China is a signitory to the berne convention

You're either a lawyer or a programmer I bet... I'm leaning toward lawyer though based on your writing about law. I intend to go into the field of law as well. Pay me enough and I'd be arguing the same point you are. ;)

[geni]

You don't know much about China do you? :p China can be signatory to whatever convention there is. That's paper on though. The key is ENFORCEMENT China does not enforce that law, therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

China is starting to inforce IP law. Anyway it is a Civl matter so the ammount of inforceing china has to do is limited.


I have no idea where "sealand" is but if it's far from the UK, I think they would be overstepping their bounds striking at an independent location more or less.


It's complicated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand

Priate bay were looking to move there at one point which should give you are fairly good idea how solid their grasp of the law is.


Besides it's the like a hydra.Those who think they can stop "piracy" have no clue.

Why would you want to stop it? Given that it removes your distribution costs there is a potential profit model where all your money comes from sueing those who priate your music.

There are various ways you could seriously mess with music pirateing. Some of them are even legal.

[geni]

You're either a lawyer or a programmer I bet... I'm leaning toward lawyer though based on your writing about law. I intend to go into the field of law as well. Pay me enough and I'd be arguing the same point you are. ;)

Nope wikipedian who spends a lot of time dealing with copyright issues. Fortunely almost no one knows about .ogg Vorbis so music isn't to much of a problem.

A total of five people know how to convert files to .ogg Theora (ok not quite true there is a 6th but he isn't around much) so video is even less of a problem

Photos on the other hand. Well if you think the RIAA are nasty you haven't met Corbis and Getty:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2002905,00.html

Mostly I'm just reacting to the low quality of debates involveing copyright.
So much of it boils down to "I want free stuff". Well what free stuff have you created? I can answer that can you?

[Morrigan]

The RIAA have no dealings with artists. The RIAA deals with record lables and their shareholders. PLCs have a legal duty to maximise profits.

Yet they claim to do all that in the interest of the artists. Hmm... right.


It is imposible to prove that either way.

If that's the case, then their complaints about losing money are unfounded. But we do know that they are.

Not at all but I do understand that respect for property rights is one of the more important factors in keeping a civilisation stable.
... :wackylaugh:
Oh noes, Sweden and Hong Kong are going to collapse on themselves..,

So you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how badly you want to get rid of the RIAA, while you continue to support them thereby helping them to stay in business?
Yes, I would.

Or you wouldn't consider it hypocritical to talk about how the RIAA is ripping you off, while you rip them off?
No, I would not. ;) Some of us don't shed any tears if a thief gets stolen from, after all. But copyright infringement isn't theft anyway.

Minor correction: Technological advances have made their business model irrelevant. The reason that the RIAA is so much more aggressive than the MPAA is that the RIAA is already dead and they are just trying to grab as much cash as they can before everyone else realises this.
True.

[Almo]

I'm for not using products of the RIAA if you don't like their methods. Buy music from other sources. Lots of what I buy is from small independent labels. Not because of the business model, but because I prefer the music. But as long as the music you prefer is put out by bands on labels that are part of the RIAA, then you're stuck with it.

DLing music without paying for it is wrong. Hell with the semantics of the statement; you know what I mean.

[69dodge]

Mostly I'm just reacting to the low quality of debates involveing copyright.
So much of it boils down to "I want free stuff".


What's wrong with wanting free stuff?

Why is it ok for a producer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want longer copyrights, so I can get paid more for producing less stuff", but it's not ok for a consumer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want shorter copyrights, so I can pay less to get more stuff"?

Everybody wants stuff. Some kinds of stuff, if one person has it, no one else can have it. So we have to decide who should get it and who shouldn't. Other kinds of stuff, everyone can have. Shouldn't everyone get it, then?

Obviously, if no one makes it, no one will be able to get it. But isn't that a separate question?

1) How do we arrange for stuff to get made?

2) Once it's made, who gets it?

It's a shame, after stuff is made, to prevent people from getting it who could get it without harming anyone else. That helps no one, directly. Indirectly, it ensures that the stuff's producers get paid by those people willing to pay the asking price. Which is fine. But it also ensures that other people---those who aren't willing to pay that price---don't get the stuff even though their not getting it helps no one, simply because we can't think of a better way to distinguish the one group of people from the other, besides threatening everyone not to give them the stuff unless they pay, and then actually carrying out the threat when some people inevitably can't afford to.

[geni]

Yet they claim to do all that in the interest of the artists. Hmm... right.

Content creators do appear to like the music industry going by the number who sign up to it.


If that's the case, then their complaints about losing money are unfounded. But we do know that they are.

Unless you can show that no one has downloaded an album rather than buy it they do have a case.


... :wackylaugh:
Oh noes, Sweden and Hong Kong are going to collapse on themselves..,


Both have IP laws. Hong Kong uses the UK system as modified by the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance which kicked in in 1997. Although that only applies to stuff produced after that date before that the UK 1956 act applies.

This kind of thing is pretty standard for any former UK holdings.

Sweden has had IP laws for quite a long time and recent EU harminisation acts have closed a lot of the loopholes. Any remaining ones will liekly be closed over the next few years.


No, I would not. ;) Some of us don't shed any tears if a thief gets stolen from, after all. But copyright infringement isn't theft anyway.


Please be provideing evidence that the RIAA have committed theft or that their member companies (not the artists) have deliberately committed theft.

[geni]

What's wrong with wanting free stuff?

In a capitalist society it is an unreasonable expectation.


Why is it ok for a producer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want longer copyrights, so I can get paid more for producing less stuff",

The odds of them frameing the argument that way are zlich.


but it's not ok for a consumer of copyrightable stuff to say "I want shorter copyrights, so I can pay less to get more stuff"?

Because shorter is meaningless. Give a length.


Everybody wants stuff. Some kinds of stuff, if one person has it, no one else can have it. So we have to decide who should get it and who shouldn't. Other kinds of stuff, everyone can have. Shouldn't everyone get it, then?


The cheap objection to that is that AIDs falls into that catigory.

The more legit answer is not if it stops it existing in the first place.


Obviously, if no one makes it, no one will be able to get it. But isn't that a separate question?

Since we are talking about changes to a single unified system no.


1) How do we arrange for stuff to get made?


I think Adam Smith had something to say about that.


2) Once it's made, who gets it?


In a capitalist societly however choses to pay the asking price.