White House and the RIAA

Dr_Patrick · Mar 25, 2009

The recording industry is quickly dying and it's exactly why they have to promote silly scare tactics like this. I'm honestly ashamed that the White House is backing them up on this crap. They should just let them crumble under the weight of their own mediocrity.

scourge99 · Mar 25, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Internet file sharing and hacking into a bank account to steal money are apples & oranges.

Good to see you have no grasp of analogies.

Fair Use Act? I laugh in your face. That's a US law.

Maybe you've heard of the World Wide Web.

The methods by which they collect their data to bring about the suits.

That's why we put locks on our doors, to protect us from people who violate laws.

I never said it's OK to steal. You've reached that conclusion on your own.

I'll express my opinion on any and all subject matter that interests me.

You on the other hand, can either read my opinions, or choose not too.

Really, it's that simple.

All you have is silly anecdotal statements. You can't explain your stance on the matter because you are ignorant to what Intellectual Property is and WHY there are laws protecting it.

You can opin to your hearts content but incompetence renders worthless opinions.

scourge99 · Mar 25, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Metallica is one example of a band who copied music from vinyl to tape, and are also one of the leading critics of copyright infringement/file sharing.

Thus the hypocrisy.

So what? There's no law against being a hypocrite.

Back in the day, albums would sometimes contain posters, stickers, music lyrics and a host of other goodies, included in the original purchase price of the record.

You are being nostalgic.
Do you have a point?

GottaHurt · Mar 25, 2009

scourge99 said:
All you have is silly anecdotal statements. You can't explain your stance on the matter because you are ignorant to what Intellectual Property is and WHY there are laws protecting it.

No, just simply crushing your bizarre attempts at analogy and pointing out that US law doesn't have to be reconized by the international community, just because you want it to.

scourge99 said:
You can opin to your hearts content but incompetence renders worthless opinions.

As yours is clearly demonstrated in your feeble attempts here.

scourge99 said:
So what? There's no law against being a hypocrite.

Hmmm, you asked:

Originally Posted by scourge99
. Your logic: It wasn't a "big deal" back then to businesses so I can't fathom why its a "big deal" now.

I replied:

Originally Posted by GottaHurt
If you'd actually do some research instead of bindly stumbling around here, you might glean some knowledge on the subject.

Metallica is one example of a band who copied music from vinyl to tape, and are also one of the leading critics of copyright infringement/file sharing.

Thus the hypocrisy.

You have no valid arguments here as you stumble your way through this thread. Instead you make up arguments that don't exist.

I never said hypocrisy was against the law.

scourge99 said:
You are being nostalgic.
Do you have a point?

Wow, more dodging. You asked I answered.

Move along now. You have no argument here, just conjecture, bizarre analogies and throwing around intellectual propoerty rights/laws that you've not used to substantiate any of your drivel with.

scourge99 · Mar 25, 2009

GottaHurt said:
pointing out that US law doesn't have to be reconized by the international community, just because you want it to.

I never said it did. This is about domestic abuses of IP and how the RIAA plans on handeling it with the help of the US gov't. Perhaps you missed that?

You have no valid arguments here as you stumble your way through this thread. Instead you make up arguments that don't exist.

you don't even have an argument to address. You have an opinion: file sharing is OK. And you have examples of things you don't like.

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is? That's all you have.

I never said hypocrisy was against the law.

then who gives a damn if Metallica is full of hypocrites? You are the one who thought hypocrisy of Metallica was some kind of support for your opinion, not I.

Why did you even bring it up?

Move along now. You have no argument here, just conjecture, bizarre analogies and throwing around intellectual propoerty rights/laws that you've not used to substantiate any of your drivel with.

You don't even have an argument. All you've done is whine about the RIAA suing people, Metallica being hypocritical, and made a non-sequitor about enforcing IP rights overseas.

Spartacus FPV · Mar 25, 2009

scourge99 said:
so if I can hack into your bank account and take your money then I shouldn't be punished. Afterall the internet was developed to share. :roll:

So if I steal your car then its OK because you should have done better to protect it?

You are ignorant to intellectual property rights and laws. Educate yourself on IP laws and why they exist before giving an opinion on things which you know nothing about.

Tell me, do you honestly think $175,000 per song is a just penalty for alleged IP right infringement?

And just how is downloading a copy of an electronic file tantamount to hacking into a BANK ACCOUNT or stealing a tangible car?!?

scourge99 · Mar 25, 2009

Lachean said:
Tell me, do you honestly think $175,000 per song is a just penalty for alleged IP right infringement?

Depends on the infringer. For most infringers, no. For those who facilitate the distribution of unknown thousands or more copies it is probably too little. The problem is that there is no feasible way to exactly determine the damage.

And just how is downloading a copy of an electronic file tantamount to hacking into a BANK ACCOUNT or stealing a tangible car?!?

What GottaHurt stated was that if its on the web then its free for anyone to have. So if someone posts music then its free for anyone. My counter to this absurd notion was to mention bank accounts and how they are accessible by the web thus defeating the ridiculous idea that if its on the web then unrestricted access is fair.

The other comment made by GottaHurt was that if companys don't do enough to protect their belongings then its their problem. This absurd notion was countered by asking whether its ok to steal your car because you didn't protect it well enough from clever thieves.

The analogies were piss poor, I'll admit that. But the notions of justice and fairplay espoused by GottaHurt are simply ignorant to the very real necessity of protecting the livlihood of inventors and artists which is solely dependent on their ability to protect their works. Furthermore the rights associated with IP provide an enormous incentive that drives creativity, invention, and proliferation.

GottaHurt · Mar 25, 2009

scourge99 said:
Depends on the infringer. For most infringers, no. For those who facilitate the distribution of unknown thousands or more copies it is probably too little. The problem is that there is no feasible way to exactly determine the damage.

The problem is you trying to defend an issue in which you have no clue on how to calculate just compensation.

scourge99 said:
What GottaHurt stated was that if its on the web then its free for anyone to have. So if someone posts music then its free for anyone.

I've said no such thing.

scourge99 said:
My counter to this absurd notion was to mention bank accounts and how they are accessible by the web thus defeating the ridiculous idea that if its on the web then unrestricted access is fair.

The only absurd notion here is your lame ass analogy of comparing a private limited access bank account, to unrestricted internet file sharing.

scourge99 said:
The other comment made by GottaHurt was that if companys don't do enough to protect their belongings then its their problem.

It is, precisely why I made the correct analogy of why we lock our doors. You can't seem to grasp this concept. Companies spend millions of dollars encrypting content in order to prevent it from being stolen.

scourge99 said:
This absurd notion was countered by asking whether its ok to steal your car because you didn't protect it well enough from clever thieves.

Again, the only thing absurd here is your analogy.

scourge99 said:
The analogies were piss poor, I'll admit that.

Piss poor? ****ing Epic Fail.

scourge99 said:
But the notions of justice and fairplay espoused by GottaHurt are simply ignorant

What's ignorant is your understanding of the discussion at hand and your dismal attempts to rationalize your bizarre "analogies".

scourge99 said:
to the very real necessity of protecting the livlihood of inventors and artists which is solely dependent on their ability to protect their works. Furthermore the rights associated with IP provide an enormous incentive that drives creativity, invention, and proliferation.

Ahh yes, you end with the grand finale of emotional appeal for the poor starving artists and their battle against the evil, pimply faced high school kid, who's doing nothing more than the starving artists did decades ago, when they simultaneously pushed the record and play buttons on their tape deck.

scourge99 · Mar 26, 2009

GottaHurt said:
The problem is you trying to defend an issue in which you have no clue on how to calculate just compensation.

I suppose you do? Care to enlighten us?

GottaHurt said:
scourge99 said:

What GottaHurt stated was that if its on the web then its free for anyone to have. So if someone posts music then its free for anyone.

Click to expand...

I've said no such thing.

GottaHurt said:
First, the internet was developed to "share".

...

If they want to protect their music or other forms of media, then encrypt/encode them so they can't be recorded or "shared".

It sounds like that's EXACTLY what you said. That if the record companies can't protect their music then its OK for others to download it if it happens to make its way onto the web of "sharing".

GottaHurt said:
The only absurd notion here is your lame ass analogy of comparing a private limited access bank account, to unrestricted internet file sharing.

Whats absurd is that you demand that record companies take every conceivable precaution necessary, no matter the cost, to protect their product. And if they don't its just "too bad" for them because you don't believe the government should be complacent in helping solve such a difficult problem.

And of course you have all the answers: "Just encrypt it". Because if it was that ****ing easy why would thousands of companies divert millions of dollars into developing solutions for this very problem that even TODAY is not solved?

GottaHurt said:
It is, precisely why I made the correct analogy of why we lock our doors.

I understand. But why are you against laws that allow you to sue people if you don't lock your door and they rob your house?

GottaHurt said:
You can't seem to grasp this concept. Companies spend millions of dollars encrypting content in order to prevent it from being stolen.

They've tried such things. They are broken faster than they can be replaced. One example: DeCSS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only solutions left are more and more complex and cost more and more money to implement. Moreover its risky because if you make things too much of a pain in the ass people wont buy your product.

GottaHurt said:
Ahh yes, you end with the grand finale of emotional appeal for the poor starving artists and their battle against the evil, pimply faced high school kid, who's doing nothing more than the starving artists did decades ago, when they simultaneously pushed the record and play buttons on their tape deck.

Except in those days you couldn't record every song from the radio station in under 5 minutes like you can today with a click of a mouse. Don't be so dismissive of the astronomical increased capability of proliferation made possible by high speed internet and the data transfer protocols of this day and age. This once negligible loss has turned into a hemorrhage of lost revenue.

GottaHurt · Mar 26, 2009

scourge99 said:
I suppose you do? Care to enlighten us?

Oh OK, Let me calculate just compensation for you to defend your position :doh

You take bizarre to another level with each and every new post.

scourge99 said:
It sounds like that's EXACTLY what you said. That if the record companies can't protect their music then its OK for others to download it if it happens to make its way onto the web of "sharing".

I've said nothing of the sort. You choose to interpret my words, then replace them with your own, to make your argument fit.

scourge99 said:
Whats absurd is that you demand that record companies take every conceivable precaution necessary, no matter the cost, to protect their product.

No, what's absurd here is your twisted notion that a company isn't responsible to take every precaution to protect their product.

scourge99 said:
And if they don't its just "too bad" for them because you don't believe the government should be complacent in helping solve such a difficult problem.

Again, you take liberty with my words.

scourge99 said:
And of course you have all the answers: "Just encrypt it". Because if it was that ****ing easy why would thousands of companies divert millions of dollars into developing solutions for this very problem that even TODAY is not solved?

I don't need all the answers, it's not my product, or my problem to solve.

scourge99 said:
I understand. But why are you against laws that allow you to sue people if you don't lock your door and they rob your house?

I've not once taken this position.

scourge99 said:
They've tried such things. They are broken faster than they can be replaced. One example: DeCSS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their failure to find a solution is not my problem.

scourge99 said:
The only solutions left are more and more complex and cost more and more money to implement. Moreover its risky because if you make things too much of a pain in the ass people wont buy your product.

Yet you can't show a decline in the number of artists trying to get their product to the masses.

scourge99 said:
Except in those days you couldn't record every song from the radio station in under 5 minutes like you can today with a click of a mouse. Don't be so dismissive of the astronomical increased capability of proliferation made possible by high speed internet and the data transfer protocols of this day and age. This once negligible loss has turned into a hemorrhage of lost revenue.

Giving a friend an album to record to cassette is no different than handing them a cd to store on a hard drive or downloading an mp3 to an ipod.

The rate at which you can share content has no bearing on the intent of the activity.

scourge99 · Mar 26, 2009

GottaHurt said:
Oh OK, Let me calculate just compensation for you to defend your position :doh

You are the one who said I can't defend an issue because I can't determine just compensation. So when I ask you to determine it since you believe I am incapable you refuse. Hypocrisy? I think so.

Was there some point you had or are you being dismissive?

I've said nothing of the sort. You choose to interpret my words, then replace them with your own, to make your argument fit.

well I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position but that's what I understood based on your wording.

No, what's absurd here is your twisted notion that a company isn't responsible to take every precaution to protect their product.

THAT, is exactly the problem here. There is no easy solution for the entertainment industry to protect their products. They have every right to sue those who violate their IP rights.

Again, you take liberty with my words.

then explain your position better so there can be no doubt.

I don't need all the answers, it's not my product, or my problem to solve.

who is asking you to solve anything? I'm merely explaining why they sue rather than implement this magic "solve-everything" encryption technology you think exists but doesn't.

Their failure to find a solution is not my problem.

this discussion isn't about you solving anything for them. Why in the world you would think that is beyond me. It is however about debating the inconsistancies and ignorance within your opinions on the matter.

Yet you can't show a decline in the number of artists trying to get their product to the masses.

Why would I need to show this? This is about the RIAA suing people for violating their IP rights and justly so. Not about artists getting their work exposed.

Giving a friend an album to record to cassette is no different than handing them a cd to store on a hard drive or downloading an mp3 to an ipod.

As long as its within the terms of Fair Use or is not a violation of copyright laws then yes such is fine.

The rate at which you can share content has no bearing on the intent of the activity.

Of course not. But it does create a compelling reason why the RIAA would want to take extra steps to deter people from illegal sharing.. Whether the choice to sue people is the optimal choice or not doesn't matter. Its their choice to make and its fully within their rights to do so.

White House and the RIAA

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

scourge99

scourge99

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant

scourge99

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World

scourge99

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant

scourge99

GottaHurt

Sexual Deviant

scourge99