• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House and the RIAA

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track | Threat Level from Wired.com
Obama's DOJ Sides with RIAA

Apparently when it comes to going after those evil music thieves, the Obama administration is just like the Bush administration. Two top officials in the new legal administrations are former RIAA lawyers, and the new administration says $175,000 per song stolen seems pretty fair.

They can't find the world's top terrorists; if you rape someone, you won't necessarily be filing for chapter 11 anytime soon, but download an MP3 you didn't pay for and its curtains for the life you had as you know it.

This is not the change I believe it. It's more big government being bought by industries who can't come up with a relevant business plan besides "sue everyone". This is why I am increasingly against big government... it is powerful, yet that power can be so easily bought.
 
Last edited:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/0 ... s-wit.html
Obama's DOJ Sides with RIAA ... _with_RIAA

Apparently when it comes to going after those evil music thieves, the Obama administration is just like the Bush administration. Two top officials in the new legal administrations are former RIAA lawyers, and the new administration says $175,000 per song stolen seems pretty fair.

They can't find the world's top terrorists; if you rape someone, you won't necessarily be filing for chapter 11 anytime soon, but download an MP3 you didn't pay for and its curtains for the life you had as you know it.

This is not the change I believe it. It's more big government being bought by industries who can't come up with a relevant business plan besides "sue everyone". This is why I am increasingly against big government... it is powerful, yet that power can be so easily bought.

If thats the way the want to do things, I will be in full support of movie/song "piracy."

There has to be a limit to copyright protection.
 
While the punishment for copyright infringement should be > 99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous, and completely ignores the idea of punishment fitting the crime. It is sickening.
 
While the punishment for copyright infringement should be... > 99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous, and completely ignores the idea of punishment fitting the crime. It is sickening.

...zero per song.

First, the internet was developed to "share".

Second, ever hear of reel-to-reel, cassette or vcr tapes?

The real crime here is the RIAA and the governments violation of right to privacy laws.

If they want to protect their music or other forms of media, then encrypt/encode them so they can't be recorded or "shared".
 
I think the way digital rights are considered needs to be changed. It's not the same as property rights, where a fixed quantity of something material is being removed to the detriment of a private body. The digital realm is non-physical. The music industry is still fully functional and they even have mp3s for sale on itunes and other pay-per-download networks. It's not like downloading mp3s is really destroying their entire industry.

In any case, I don't support the removal of the rights of everyone in order to protect a few companies. The digital information era is here... all non-physical media is subject to distribution. Why bother fighting it? We're becoming an information species.
 
I think the way digital rights are considered needs to be changed. It's not the same as property rights, where a fixed quantity of something material is being removed to the detriment of a private body. The digital realm is non-physical. The music industry is still fully functional and they even have mp3s for sale on itunes and other pay-per-download networks. It's not like downloading mp3s is really destroying their entire industry.

In any case, I don't support the removal of the rights of everyone in order to protect a few companies. The digital information era is here... all non-physical media is subject to distribution. Why bother fighting it? We're becoming an information species.

I agree. Information once released is public, no amount of whining and crying is going to change that.

If you don't want someone to "pirate" it then don't release it.
 
If you could duplicate your medication, wouldn't you?

IMO you cannot fight the free flow of data on the internet, there are far more people improving it than there are fighting it. The more DRM you put out, the more your business will suffer. Those who went DRM free profited. Old media needs to adapt or perish, Hulu for example was a very wise move.

The internet changed everything, and lots of businesses are going to be wiped out because of it (think print media.) I honestly don't mind it all, I enjoy and prefer our advances.

If by some miracle science produced a "duplication machine," I would support its use as well, regardless of how many energy, medicine and food companies it puts out of business who cry out for prohibition.

The RIAA are middlemen who are simply being cut out, artists who have embraced the web like Trent Reznor and Oasis have profited, practically giving away their music for tips, by cutting out the RIAA and record labels. IMO most jobs are middlemen who need to be cut out, so those people can be put to work at actually producing something...

This position by the Obama administration shows that in this way he is out of touch with CHANGE in this world. /rant_off
 
Last edited:
While the punishment for copyright infringement should be > 99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous, and completely ignores the idea of punishment fitting the crime. It is sickening.

I agree.This is absurd. Thats like executing someone who threw a paper cup on the ground.I sure hope Obama hasn't criticized any middle eastern countries for stoning rape victims and elderly people who talked to men,because that would make him look like the biggest hypocrite in the world.

99 cents, $150,000+ per song is outrageous

In my town you have Cox cable service you can get Cox rhapsody for 12 or 13 dollars a month for unlimited songs.So it is cheaper than 99 cents a song depending on the service you have.
 
...zero per song.

First, the internet was developed to "share".

Second, ever hear of reel-to-reel, cassette or vcr tapes?

The real crime here is the RIAA and the governments violation of right to privacy laws.

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

I wonder how many people made mix tapes or sat there there with a radio tape recorded and recorded their favorite songs off the radio?
 
I wonder how many people made mix tapes or sat there there with a radio tape recorded and recorded their favorite songs off the radio?

It is the distribution system that is the problem. With tapes the amount of copies that can be made by the average person with average equipment is limited vs the internet where the same average person with average equipment can distribute on a mass scale.
 
First of all, let's look at the amount...

150,000 ****** thousand PER SONG!! I know people who would now owe literally MILLIONS in fines now because of this outrageous...punishment! 150,000 per 1000 songs, maybe, but 150,000 per track?
 
I'd like to see somebody try to justify this outrageous amount.


The problem of encoding songs, GottaHurt, is that if it can be listened to, it can be recorded. Using line-out, or even recording off the sound card using a program like Audacity renders any encoding or DRM on music useless.
 
This is another example of whats wrong with our country. People believe they are entitled to a static career, meaning they believe that once they start a career, they expect that career must still be in place when they retire.

Job progression means a destruction of old, and outdated jobs. There is nothing wrong with that. All this protectionism by the government, of these outdated jobs, stymies our nations progress. I've used this example before. If these retards running our country now, existed back in the early 1900s, we'd still be driving carts and buggys because they couldn't stand the thought of cart and buggy dealers not having a career.

This music thing is just another example of outdated jobs, clinging to the government for protection.
 
This is another example of whats wrong with our country. People believe they are entitled to a static career, meaning they believe that once they start a career, they expect that career must still be in place when they retire.

Job progression means a destruction of old, and outdated jobs. There is nothing wrong with that. All this protectionism by the government, of these outdated jobs, stymies our nations progress. I've used this example before. If these retards running our country now, existed back in the early 1900s, we'd still be driving carts and buggys because they couldn't stand the thought of cart and buggy dealers not having a career.

This music thing is just another example of outdated jobs, clinging to the government for protection.

Being an artist/muscian is an outdated gig? Maybe the business model needs to change.
 
Being an artist/muscian is an outdated gig? Maybe the business model needs to change.

I support you being an artist/musician (although I've never seen or heard your work) but how can anyone expect, that once their work is public, that no one will copy it.

You can't control it once it leaves your hands.

I might get scalded for this but the artsy jobs are becoming more and more like the herd of people who want to be actors.
The market is full so don't expect much.
 
I support you being an artist/musician (although I've never seen or heard your work) but how can anyone expect, that once their work is public, that no one will copy it.

I'm actually trained as a visual artist. Copyright laws are there to protect my income for my efforts and investments as well as intellectual property.

You can't control it once it leaves your hands.

So some one can take credit for my work and it is aokay?


I might get scalded for this but the artsy jobs are becoming more and more like the herd of people who want to be actors.
The market is full so don't expect much.


That has always pretty much been true. BTW actors are artists as well.
 
I'm actually trained as a visual artist. Copyright laws are there to protect my income for my efforts and investments as well as intellectual property.

I understand completely, but realistically how are you going to control that if 50,000 people run off with a copy not paying you?

So some one can take credit for my work and it is aokay?

Not that isn't ok. Since most artists release their works with some sort of reference that shouldn't happen as much.

That has always pretty much been true. BTW actors are artists as well.

Actors are artists? Have you seen "Glitter" or "The Hottie and The Nottie" ?

Highly debatable.
 
I understand completely, but realistically how are you going to control that if 50,000 people run off with a copy not paying you?

That is what the court system is for. Personally I think sueing some kid with a computer is a silly way to go about it though and mostly benefits the lawyers.


Not that isn't ok. Since most artists release their works with some sort of reference that shouldn't happen as much.


It happens and has happened to me.


Actors are artists? Have you seen "Glitter" or "The Hottie and The Nottie" ?

Highly debatable.


Oh man Mama Mia sheeeesh that flick was terrible and I was stuck on the airplane for three hours.;)
 
...zero per song.

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

Second, ever hear of reel-to-reel, cassette or vcr tapes?
ever heard of "fair-use". Apparently not.

The real crime here is the RIAA and the governments violation of right to privacy laws.
how is your privacy being violated by being sued?

If they want to protect their music or other forms of media, then encrypt/encode them so they can't be recorded or "shared".
So its the companys problem when people violate the law? So if I steal your car then its OK because you should have done better to protect it?

You are ignorant to intellectual property rights and laws. Educate yourself on IP laws and why they exist before giving an opinion on things which you know nothing about.
 
That is what the court system is for. Personally I think sueing some kid with a computer is a silly way to go about it though and mostly benefits the lawyers.

Some of the biggest problems in my view are the length of copyright and how much people charge for their works.

It used to be (when I was in school for marketing) that a copy right was the life of the author plus 50 years. In my opinion it should be no more than 10 years period.

Movies, music and to a lesser degree art work is way over priced and the creators in some fields are way over paid. 1 million for a movie, for 1 year of work, give me a break.


It happens and has happened to me.

Thats not right at all. Even if you had released it from copyright protection that isn't cool.

Linus Trorvalds still gets props for being the creator of the Linux OS.
If someone were to try and take credit I would thrash them.

How can you reasonably protect that though?


Oh man Mama Mia sheeeesh that flick was terrible and I was stuck on the airplane for three hours.;)

One of the worst movies ever. It was with the real Alien movies so I thought why not... big mistake.

AVH: Alien vs. Hunter (2007) (V)
 
I'm actually trained as a visual artist. Copyright laws are there to protect my income ...

Actually, it was meant to protect your ability to control the use of the work - profit or nonprofit uses alike, not gaurentee a revenue source. This mindset (regarding this being the purpose of copyright), with all due respect, and in my own opinion, is what lead to the ability of giant corporations and powerful lobbyists to completely screw with the laws / take copyright far away from what it was supposed to be about.
 
I wonder how many people made mix tapes or sat there there with a radio tape recorded and recorded their favorite songs off the radio?

The RIAA was the topic of research for a college course I took several years back.

Watching old band interviews revealed the true hypocrisy in all of this. I can't tell you how many had nonchalantly talked about how in their early years they couldn't wait for a new album release, they'd pool their money to buy it, then tape it.

The epitome of it all though, I did a search for some lyrics of a current pop star, the result of the search was that I could purchase the lyrics and sheet music.

Truly a sad day indeed.
 
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:

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

Good to see you have no grasp of analogies.

ever heard of "fair-use". Apparently not.

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

Maybe you've heard of the World Wide Web.

how is your privacy being violated by being sued?

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

So its the companys problem when people violate the law?

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

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

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

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.

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.
 
The RIAA was the topic of research for a college course I took several years back.

Watching old band interviews revealed the true hypocrisy in all of this. I can't tell you how many had nonchalantly talked about how in their early years they couldn't wait for a new album release, they'd pool their money to buy it, then tape it.
. Your logic: It wasn't a "big deal" back then to businesses so I can't fathom why its a "big deal" now. :doh

The epitome of it all though, I did a search for some lyrics of a current pop star, the result of the search was that I could purchase the lyrics and sheet music.

Truly a sad day indeed.
Why is that?
 
. Your logic: It wasn't a "big deal" back then to businesses so I can't fathom why its a "big deal" now. :doh

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.

. Why is that?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom