RIAA Lawyers: "Give Us $75 Trillion" Judge: "Absurd"

[lashicoN]

How do you propose the creator of intellectual property be paid?

I think our current system works fine. I haven't heard Hollywood cutting back the insane dollar amounts paid to Directors or actors. I don't think the record industry is paying performers with peanuts. It looks like they are still making plenty of money.

After you create something, if you want to profit from that creation, you sell it. Poof, you made money from something you created and since you sold it, it no longer belongs to you. That's how they should make their money. They are having their cake, eating their cake, and selling the cake to consumers, while suing people who share their piece of overpriced cake.

 

[dross]

I think our current system works fine. I haven't heard Hollywood cutting back the insane dollar amounts paid to Directors or actors. I don't think the record industry is paying performers with peanuts. It looks like they are still making plenty of money.

After you create something, if you want to profit from that creation, you sell it. Poof, you made money from something you created and since you sold it, it no longer belongs to you. That's how they should make their money. They are having their cake, eating their cake, and selling the cake to consumers, while suing people who share their piece of overpriced cake.

Please explain slowly and use small words. I really don't understand what you're saying.

If I write a book, how do I get paid? Or do you pay me 12.95 for it, then make copies for the World, but I've been paid my 12.95? I'm not arguing (yet) I just want to understand your argument.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

It isn't theft if you have permission from the owner. I'm of the mind that when you purchase something, it's yours.

I completely agree. The key word in that phrase being "purchase".

I believe if you purchase a shotgun, it's yours, you should be able to cut YOUR barrel down to whatever length YOU wish, since it's your product that you paid for with your money from your job.

We are still in agreement to here.

If your friend buys you a CD for your birthday and you accept it for free, did you steal it? You didn't give the record company any money from your pocket.

This is a ludicrous argument. Someone, your friend, bought the CD and gifted it to you. It is not the same thing as your friend "downloading" a CD and giving it to you as a gift.

Let's get one thing straight. I have no issues with anyone that buys a CD, and makes a digital copy for their own use or downloads it onto their own iPod, again for personal use.

By using your argument above, I should also be able to do the same thing with any software, right? I bought it, I paid for it, and I should be able to make it available to anyone, right?

Just because it can be digitized easily and made available online, does not make it right to distribute that without proper rights or royalties. You can try to justify it in any way that you want. Until copyright laws are changed, it's theft. Whether you would have bought it or not is irrelevent.

And I may have some personal issues here as I spent a significant part of my career writing SAP software. If I wrote a program as a consultant, our agreements with the clients say that they will not distribute that program to others. If they do, they're taking money out of my pocket (or another programmer).

It just amazes me that otherwise law-abiding people don't recognize taking intellectual property without proper payment as theft simply because it's easy to do with today's technology.

Also, I will freely admit that I have 3 kids and I know they download songs and movies. I have also done some downloading in the past when the technology was new. I choose not to anymore. I'm not going to freak out on anybody, friends or otherwise, that download. Just don't use my network to do it and we're cool.

Just don't try to justify it by saying it's not theft because you're wrong. Until the copyright laws are changed, it's theft. Do it if you want, just don't lie about it.

 

[steveh_131]

How do you propose the creator of intellectual property be paid?

This is a tough question.

I am of the opinion that someone who creates something that can be copied and distributed at virtually no cost needs to find a way to profit from it apart from copying and distributing it themselves.

I certainly would not propose that a set of arbitrary laws be put in place to assign an artificial value to the act of copying and distributing the information.

 

[dross]

This is a tough question.

I am of the opinion that someone who creates something that can be copied and distributed at virtually no cost needs to find a way to profit from it apart from copying and distributing it themselves.

I certainly would not propose that a set of arbitrary laws be put in place to assign an artificial value to the act of copying and distributing the information.

Let's approach it this way, then. I write a book, or create a CD. Instead of selling it to you, I enter a contract with you that while you own the physical part of the book or CD, you do not own the unique arrangement of words and sounds. If you do not agree to this, you may not purchase it, but by purchasing it, you enter into a contract with me that you will not reproduce my unique arrangement of words and sounds and distribute them.

Now, the only way the law enters into it is to enforce it like any other contract.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Again, the argument about the music industry or Hollywood not having to cut back on mega salaries to actors is irrelevent.

If I can charge millions to do my work and someone else agrees to pay it, great!! Isn't capitalism grand!!!!

But you can't justify your theft because the person your taking from doesn't really need the money. They have so much more than you, that it's not fair for them to charge any more money? They should now act in movies or put on concerts for free?

Please! We live in a capitalistic society and I think it's great. If Harrison Ford can get someone to give him $2 Million for one acting job, then God Bless Harrison Ford!!!! If the Eagles can get 18K people to pay $175 each to listen to a live 2 hour concert, God Bless 'em and go put on all of the concerts you can. Make all you can, while you can.

But please don't use that as justification for downloading Eagles songs for free. Otherwise, every drug dealer that steals from you can use that same excuse. (And yes, I'm viewing physical property in the same light as intellectual property. Both are property and protected by laws).

 

[rambone]

If you purchase an apple, can you extract the seeds, plant them, grow apple trees, and sell those apples? Do they belong to you or do they belong to the person who sold you the original apple?

Depends on if the apple is a GMO product of Monsanto. Planting their seeds will get you sued for everything you own.

Monsanto ”Seed Police” Scrutinize Farmers


They are also beginning to patent animals.

Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig

 

[steveh_131]

Let's approach it this way, then. I write a book, or create a CD. Instead of selling it to you, I enter a contract with you that while you own the physical part of the book or CD, you do not own the unique arrangement of words and sounds. If you do not agree to this, you may not purchase it, but by purchasing it, you enter into a contract with me that you will not reproduce my unique arrangement of words and sounds and distribute them.

Now, the only way the law enters into it is to enforce it like any other contract.

First of all, consider the practical implications. You would need to present and sign this contract like any other contract. No more of this nonsense where you implicitly agree to it when you swipe your debit card. The contract would need to lay out the exact terms. Let's say you purchase a movie. Can you watch this movie with a friend? How many friends? Can you loan it out? If it's loaned, how many people can they show it to? Can they loan it out again? How long can it be loaned out? What if I watch it and just tell people what happens? Is that allowed? I'd be curious to see how many people actually sign these contracts.

Secondly, I'm not sure that I agree that we should be legally enforcing laws regarding the dissemination of information. The rules would be too unfair and arbitrary for any sort of consistency.

But you can't justify your theft because the person your taking from doesn't really need the money. They have so much more than you, that it's not fair for them to charge any more money? They should now act in movies or put on concerts for free?

He wasn't "justifying theft". He was simply pointing out that this content is already very freely copied and distributed with no negative impacts on the industries that are supposedly being "stolen from".

 

[dross]

First of all, consider the practical implications. You would need to present and sign this contract like any other contract. No more of this nonsense where you implicitly agree to it when you swipe your debit card. The contract would need to lay out the exact terms. Let's say you purchase a movie. Can you watch this movie with a friend? How many friends? Can you loan it out? If it's loaned, how many people can they show it to? Can they loan it out again? How long can it be loaned out? What if I watch it and just tell people what happens? Is that allowed? I'd be curious to see how many people actually sign these contracts.

Secondly, I'm not sure that I agree that we should be legally enforcing laws regarding the dissemination of information. The rules would be too unfair and arbitrary for any sort of consistency.

There are many ways to enter a binding contract under contract law besides signing. And if we agree to terms all those details you brought up can be worked out. The answer to all those questions is, "whatever we agree to."

It seems simple to me. If you agree to buy, you agree to my terms. Otherwise you can't buy. If you buy and you break my terms, you have broken your part of the contract.

It's actually simple, I think your problem with it is that you don't like the results of it. In this sense it has nothing to do with the enforcement arm of the government, this is a private contract. Agree, or don't agree. Walk away with the CD, or don't. Freedom.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

He wasn't "justifying theft". He was simply pointing out that this content is already very freely copied and distributed with no negative impacts on the industries that are supposedly being "stolen from".

How do we know that?

Are you saying that because Green Day, Metallica, The Eagles, etc all are doing OK that no band or artist has been negatively impacted by illegal downloading? Do you know this for fact or is it just an assumption based on a very few examples.

People always point to the superstars as the example. There are a lot of struggling authors, actors, and musicians out there. Many hold multiple jobs while they try to "make it" in the industry. Those are the ones most potentially suffering.

 

[TopDog]

This is not as big a question as its made out to be. Read this:

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

That is the explanation of fair use from the copyright office of the US government.

Pay attention to "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair" then sub item 4 "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work".

The RIAA cant prove that they are losing money based on the downloading of their products. Why? because they are showing record profits since 2007. No one raised hell about people copying when all we had was casset tapes. Fair use applied. Now they claim simply because there is wider potential for use the fair use no longer applies.

There is no hard evidence to show the RIAA or MPAA are losing money due to piracy. You cant prove that people that downloaded anything would have bought it in the first place. This is all based on a potential market loss not actual loss.

I don't want to hear that the RIAA and MPAA are losing money based on piracy. There are both loss and benefits from downloading and based on profits I think there is more benefits for the RIAA and MPAA than loss.

 

[dross]

To me, there's another issue at play here. While I don't agree that there's no such thing as intellectual property - to paraphrase the judge's ruling in a different context - I find that absurd.

The other issue is why is Limewire responsible? If I sell you a gun, am I responsible for what you do with it? If I sell you a set of lock picks, am I responsible for your illegal use of them?

Limewire made a product that allowed users to share files. The users are the ones responsible for the files they shared.

 

[TopDog]

How do we know that?

Are you saying that because Green Day, Metallica, The Eagles, etc all are doing OK that no band or artist has been negatively impacted by illegal downloading? Do you know this for fact or is it just an assumption based on a very few examples.

People always point to the superstars as the example. There are a lot of struggling authors, actors, and musicians out there. Many hold multiple jobs while they try to "make it" in the industry. Those are the ones most potentially suffering.

I remember when this all became a big deal it came out that the average artist was only making $1.00 out of a $15.00 CD. That is when more music artists started doing their own recording, so they could make more profit from their work. The biggest negative impact is greed by the industry not downloading.

 

[lashicoN]

Please explain slowly and use small words. I really don't understand what you're saying.

If I write a book, how do I get paid? Or do you pay me 12.95 for it, then make copies for the World, but I've been paid my 12.95? I'm not arguing (yet) I just want to understand your argument.

I think our current system works fine. If you write a book, you can sell it to a publishing company. They print the book with your name on it, they write you a check and everyone is happy. But if I purchase the book, I should be able to rent it out to my friends or quote passages from it when I choose. If I want to sink money into a system where I reprint the book, with the author's name and ideas fully intact, at a loss to myself then I should be able to do that. The author got his money from the publishing company, and I put up my own money to make the reproductions.

This is a ludicrous argument. Someone, your friend, bought the CD and gifted it to you. It is not the same thing as your friend "downloading" a CD and giving it to you as a gift.

By using your argument above, I should also be able to do the same thing with any software, right? I bought it, I paid for it, and I should be able to make it available to anyone, right?

It just amazes me that otherwise law-abiding people don't recognize taking intellectual property without proper payment as theft simply because it's easy to do with today's technology.

Just don't try to justify it by saying it's not theft because you're wrong. Until the copyright laws are changed, it's theft. Do it if you want, just don't lie about it.

But it isn't theft. Who did I steal it from? Someone purchases the original CD to put it on Limewire, so it is the exact same thing as a "friend" giving you a CD for free, as a gift. You still didn't purchase anything, but ended up with the music/movie. I think you should be able to do whatever you want with whatever you purchased, because it's now your property. If you want to put that property that you purchased on PTP network, that's your call. Is YouTube theft? Is INGO theft of news websites? If you don't pay for something, are you automatically a thief? I don't download music or movies anymore either. I have made a copy or two of disc media that I purchased for a personal backup copy. I had to purchase the DVD burner, PC, and blank disc, so nothing is free.

Let's approach it this way, then. I write a book, or create a CD. Instead of selling it to you, I enter a contract with you that while you own the physical part of the book or CD, you do not own the unique arrangement of words and sounds. If you do not agree to this, you may not purchase it, but by purchasing it, you enter into a contract with me that you will not reproduce my unique arrangement of words and sounds and distribute them.

Now, the only way the law enters into it is to enforce it like any other contract.

I'd be completely fine with that. And that is how the industry believes it's currently set up when they throw in an FBI logo and tell you that you'll owe them 75 billion dollars if you even think about making a copy of the disc, but I didn't agree to that contract. If I have to sign something, check a box online, or verbally agree, cool, but that isn't what is happening right now.

How would you like it if I sold you a box of .223 ammo and once you got home and opened it, you found a note that me and my lawyers and the Feds that I bought off wrote up letting you know that you are only allowed to use said .223 ammo in my company's custom M4 that runs an additional $2,000.00. If you do anything else with it, you owe us 75 billion dollars. You'd probably laugh, right? That's how I feel about copyright laws without contracts.

But please don't use that as justification for downloading Eagles songs for free. Otherwise, every drug dealer that steals from you can use that same excuse. (And yes, I'm viewing physical property in the same light as intellectual property. Both are property and protected by laws).

It isn't free. The Eagles still got paid. My mom purchased their vinyls and I don't think they are going to miss the copy of Hotel California (that's Eagles, right? Great song, love the solo.) that I downloaded four years ago. They still have that song to sell on iTunes, because I didn't steal it. I downloaded the copy that my mom may or may not (certainly not in my case) have put on a PTP network after she purchased her copy.

If a drug dealer steals said something from me, do I still get to keep it and re-sell, re-sell, re-package, and re-sell it to consumers like record companies do, or is it actually stolen from me?

 

[steveh_131]

It's actually simple, I think your problem with it is that you don't like the results of it. In this sense it has nothing to do with the enforcement arm of the government, this is a private contract. Agree, or don't agree. Walk away with the CD, or don't. Freedom.

I certainly see your point. From this, I take it that you believe the government should enforce any contract, no matter the contents, as long as the contract does not infringe the rights of any excluded parties?

In addition, this contract is only binding to the original purchaser. The purchaser who buys the CD and uploads it is liable for breaking that contract. The millions who download it are not, as they agreed to no such contract. Correct?

How do we know that?

Are you saying that because Green Day, Metallica, The Eagles, etc all are doing OK that no band or artist has been negatively impacted by illegal downloading? Do you know this for fact or is it just an assumption based on a very few examples.

You're right, I stated the point too forcefully.

The reality is that these industries still flourish in spite of the rampant piracy. And open source models have proven that profit can exist even when content is not copyrighted.

Copyright laws are not the only way to provide compensation for creative works.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

I think the biggest difference between the cassette/vinyl argument is two-fold. Distribution and quality.

Let me ask this. I picked up Bryan Ciyou's book this last weekend at the 1500. How about I scan it, load it onto a bunch of blank discs, and give them away at the next 1500?

And yes, authors are initially paid by publishers. Their deal doesn't end their. They also receive additional payments on units SOLD.

 

[dross]

I think our current system works fine. If you write a book, you can sell it to a publishing company. They print the book with your name on it, they write you a check and everyone is happy. But if I purchase the book, I should be able to rent it out to my friends or quote passages from it when I choose. If I want to sink money into a system where I reprint the book, with the author's name and ideas fully intact, at a loss to myself then I should be able to do that. The author got his money from the publishing company, and I put up my own money to make the reproductions.

?

You're trying to make arithmetic into economics.

That all sounds fine, but if the publishing company who buys it from me doesn't make as much money because their market is eaten up by all the copiers and renters out there who only paid a tiny portion of the cost of bringing that book into being, then they won't pay me, the author as much.

The book is just paper and ink. You can buy that anywhere. What you can't buy anywhere is my unique arrangement of that ink and paper. It's the very fact that you can take something that has great value and easily reproduce its value with little to no investment of your own that makes intellectual property laws necessary.

 

[steveh_131]

It's the very fact that you can take something that has great value and easily reproduce its value with little to no investment of your own that makes intellectual property laws necessary.

Whoah, time out. Contract law and intellectual property law are two very different things. Which are you advocating here? Both?

 

[dross]

Whoah, time out. Contract law and intellectual property law are two very different things. Which are you advocating here? Both?

As a matter of fact, yes. I figure I can kick your butt on any of three separate playgrounds on this particular issue :

1. Practical considerations
2. Intellectual property
3. Contract law

 

[steveh_131]

As a matter of fact, yes. I figure I can kick your butt on any of three separate playgrounds on this particular issue :

1. Practical considerations
2. Intellectual property
3. Contract law

Ok.

1. Practical considerations. Maybe copyright laws allow for more intellectual property to be created. Maybe they don't. We could argue this all day. The real question is: Do you advocate more laws based on their good/bad effects or based on liberty?

2. Intellectual property. Do you base your belief in this upon the practical considerations? If so, I pose the same question as above. If not, I'd be curious to hear why you advocate IP laws. These laws are far more intrusive than a contract that is only binding the seller and the purchaser to its terms.

3. I think I agree with you on the contracts, IF the contracts are presented in a reasonable fashion to the consumer.