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

[lashicoN]

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.

Like I said before, if you want to sink your own money into it, purchasing the original product, the blank discs, and the time invested, you should be free to do it. If someone wants to protect their ideas from the world, they shouldn't unleash them.

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.

So only the publishing/record/film company has the right to make unlimited reproductions (iTunes, Kindle, etc...) at a profit? Why? They didn't create the words on the paper. They get to do it because they bought it from the creator, as we all do when we purchase a CD, movie, or book. I just don't see the difference. You can't sell something to someone with a hidden message after they open the product that notifies them that the product they just bought still doesn't belong to them. That's just wrong.

And as I said before, the music and film industry seem to be doing fine, with all the pirating, stealing, and copying going on. The scenario you laid out about the creator getting screwed out of more money isn't happening with all of this "free" copying currently in place. Libraries didn't put authors out of business. And why aren't libraries illegal? Because they're run by the government? It seems like everyone except the tax payer/consumer get to freely reproduce media at a profit.

 

[rambone]

For just $40,000 per day, you can sponsor a recording artist and help ease their suffering.

 

[dross]

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?

Laws are (or should be) made to advance practical considerations. They just shouldn't violate liberty. The practical consideration of intellectual property law is that is extremely vulnerable to being used without compensating it's creator for it's actual value on the market. You render the value of a unique arrangement of symbols and sounds much less valuable if you convert them to the cost of ink and paper, or ti magnetic 1s and 0s and plastic.

I see no violation of liberty because I truly believe that the arrangement of those symbols and or sounds is actual property in and of itself.

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.

What is property? Property is something owned by someone. Do I own my unique arrangement of symbols and sounds or not? You've agreed already that I do. I can sell them to a publisher, you've agreed to that. If someone were to break into my house and steal my unpublished manuscript, are they guilty of stealing some paper worth five bucks a ream, or are they guilty of stealing a novel that the publisher has paid me a 100k advance to write? So if I own that novel, not just the paper it's printed on, I should be able to sell it. Now it belongs to the publisher. Its value to the publisher isn't the paper it's printed on, its value is the unique arrangment of symbols.

One copy of that is worth very little. It's value resides in the ability to distribute it to a lot of people who will pay that little amount. If someone takes that unique arrangement and by distributing it freely or for a price, they've stolen the VALUE of the book by diminishing it.

Your supposition ignores the actual value and pretends the value is just the ink and the paper. If that's the case, you don't need to reproduce my work, just make your own arrangement of symbols and distribute that. If it's not property, then why do you need to copy mine? Copy your own. The fact you and many others wish to have a copy of it is defacto proof of its value.

Your own argument contains its refutation.

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

And they've got that on their side as well.

 

[lashicoN]

For just $40,000 per day, you can sponsor a recording artist and help ease their suffering.

$40,000 a day!? How could they afford to put on diamond rims on their solid gold Hummer? You're just a thief!

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

And as I said before, the music and film industry seem to be doing fine, with all the pirating, stealing, and copying going on.

Stop saying this as it everyone in those industries is doing fine. They're not. There are record labels that have gone out of business and there are studios that have gone out of business and there are many in the industry that do struggle.

Even if everyone in the industry is doing great, that's is still not justification for your position. Do you think there should be limits on what a person should be able to earn from their labor and creativity?

 

[steveh_131]

Laws are (or should be) made to advance practical considerations. They just shouldn't violate liberty. The practical consideration of intellectual property law is that is extremely vulnerable to being used without compensating it's creator for it's actual value on the market. You render the value of a unique arrangement of symbols and sounds much less valuable if you convert them to the cost of ink and paper, or magnetic 1s and 0s to plastic.

I see no violation of liberty because I truly believe that the arrangement of those symbols and or sounds is actual property in and of itself.

Then we disagree. I think laws should only exist to protect liberty. Why don't we make laws assigning an arbitrary value to all sorts of things, to create industries where none should exist in a truly free market?

What is property? Property is something owned by someone. Do I own my unique arrangement of symbols and sounds or not? You've agreed already that I do. I can sell them to a publisher, you've agreed to that. If someone were to break into my house and steal my unpublished manuscript, are they guilty of stealing some paper worth five bucks a ream, or are they guilty of stealing a novel that the publisher has paid me a 100k advance to write? So if I own that novel, not just the paper it's printed on, I should be able to sell it. Now it belongs to the publisher. Its value to the publisher isn't the paper it's printed on, its value is the unique arrangment of symbols.

One copy of that is worth very little. It's value resides in the ability to distribute it to a lot of people who will pay that little amount. If someone takes that unique arrangement and by distributing it freely or for a price, they've stolen the VALUE of the book by diminishing it.

Your supposition ignores the actual value and pretends the value is just the ink and the paper. If that's the case, you don't need to reproduce my work, just make your own arrangement of symbols and distribute that. If it's not property, then why do you need to copy mine? Copy your own. The fact you and many others wish to have a copy of it is defacto proof of its value.

Your own argument contains its refutation.

I did agree that you own your intellectual property. I did NOT agree that you continue to be the sole owner once you have passed it along to someone. If you both agreed to a contract that stipulates how this knowledge may be used, then so be it. That contract binds you and the purchaser. But I don't believe that you should be able to declare yourself the sole owner of a certain piece of knowledge and have the government enforce that upon the entire population.

And they've got that on their side as well.

No, they don't. They do not at all present these contracts in any meaningful form, instead relying on inconsistent laws and case-law to enforce this nonsense. I've bought a few DVD's and CD's. Nowhere did I agree to any kind of contract in written, electronic, verbal, sign language, or any other form. If I did, then I agree that I would be morally required to honor that contract.

 

[lashicoN]

Stop saying this as it everyone in those industries is doing fine. They're not. There are record labels that have gone out of business and there are studios that have gone out of business and there are many in the industry that do struggle.

Even if everyone in the industry is doing great, that's is still not justification for your position. Do you think there should be limits on what a person should be able to earn from their labor and creativity?

Hi there, please don't tell me to "stop saying" anything.

If I started up a shoe company, promised my employees $10,000,000.00 a year and charged $1,000,000.00 per pair of shoes, I'd expect to go out of business too. I don't feel sorry for these greed monkeys going out of business. Until you can prove to me that downloading music has directly caused these companies to go under, then I can continue to say what I please and feel right about it.

The limit people should be able to earn from their labor is the price the consumer is willing to pay. If these companies are going out of business due to loss of money, they are obviously paying too much money to their artists, CEOs, agents, etc... while not taking enough money in. Since they are going out of business, I would venture to say that the consumer is letting them know that their products are overpriced.

 

[femurphy77]

Here is the argument that I have. Ok, so I have purchased a CD. What does that give me, that give me the RIGHT to listen to that music on that one particular medium. I can not copy that song and give it to my friend. I can play it for him or her to listen to as long as I am not making a profit off of playing that song. So I have that CD and something happens to it, the damn thing gets a scratch and will no longer play. Ok, since I have purchased the RIGHTS to listen to that song, I should be able to make a archival copy of that CD for my own personal use. Now, because I save a copy of that CD on my computers hard drive then transfer it to my iPad, am I breaking the law? I still have the RIGHT to listen to that music so as I am only listening to it on ONE device at a time and not copying if for people to make a copy of. So if I had a CD that was scratched and I did NOT make a backup copy, I should be in the clear to download that particular piece of music again because I have still paid for the RIGHT to listen to that music.

Just my thoughts...

INGunGuy

Exactly what he said! My take on their arguements is as above. Of all the music I've purchase thru the years and various mediums to deliver this music my lowly opinion is that if I own a piece of music in any format that I have bought at retail price then why can't I go to any website distributing music legally and download the songs that I already own without legal repercussions?


We've got over 3000 45 rpm records and a couple of hundred LP's that I would love to have in digital format. That would keep my combined total 1100 disc cd changer in "random play" for weeks!!!

 

[lashicoN]

Exactly what he said! My take on their arguements is as above. Of all the music I've purchase thru the years and various mediums to deliver this music my lowly opinion is that if I own a piece of music in any format that I have bought at retail price then why can't I go to any website distributing music legally and download the songs that I already own without legal repercussions?


We've got over 3000 45 rpm records and a couple of hundred LP's that I would love to have in digital format. That would keep my combined total 1100 disc cd changer in "random play" for weeks!!!

That sounds like a great collection. I don't know if you've heard of these things, but if you're looking to convert, you might be interested in one of them.

Amazon.com: Audio Technica AT-PL60USB Fully Automatic Belt Driven Turntable with USB Port: Musical Instruments

 

[dross]

Then we disagree. I think laws should only exist to protect liberty. Why don't we make laws assigning an arbitrary value to all sorts of things, to create industries where none should exist in a truly free market?

How does a law against theft protect liberty? If you consider that a law protecting liberty, then so be it, I'll hang my argument on your hat rack.

This arbitrary value thing is a red herring. If you steal my rifle, a value must be assigned for you to make recompense. Some rifles are worth more than the day they were sold, some are worth less. Perhaps you must pay the cost for me to replace the rifle. Any way you look at it, if you steal from me, we have to have a way to determine value for you to make me whole again.

I did agree that you own your intellectual property. I did NOT agree that you continue to be the sole owner once you have passed it along to someone.

No, but if I've sold it to someone else, then THEY become the owner, just the same as I was once the owner. Now they have all the ownership rights that I had. You can't reasonably argue that a thing belongs to me but that it ceases to belong to anyone once I've sold it to someone else.

If you both agreed to a contract that stipulates how this knowledge may be used, then so be it. That contract binds you and the purchaser. But I don't believe that you should be able to declare yourself the sole owner of a certain piece of knowledge and have the government enforce that upon the entire population
We're

No, they don't. They do not at all present these contracts in any meaningful form, instead relying on inconsistent laws and case-law to enforce this nonsense. I've bought a few DVD's and CD's. Nowhere did I agree to any kind of contract in written, electronic, verbal, sign language, or any other form. If I did, then I agree that I would be morally required to honor that contract.

We appear to agree in principle on the contract aspect of this. I'm not really interested in discussing the minor details. Whether you sign, what the stipulations are, I don't really care that much, the point is that you agree that a contract could be made and that contracts are enforcable.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Hi there, please don't tell me to "stop saying" anything.

If I started up a shoe company, promised my employees $10,000,000.00 a year and charged $1,000,000.00 per pair of shoes, I'd expect to go out of business too. I don't feel sorry for these greed monkeys going out of business. Until you can prove to me that downloading music has directly caused these companies to go under, then I can continue to say what I please and feel right about it.

The limit people should be able to earn from their labor is the price the consumer is willing to pay. If these companies are going out of business due to loss of money, they are obviously paying too much money to their artists, CEOs, agents, etc... while not taking enough money in. Since they are going out of business, I would venture to say that the consumer is letting them know that their products are overpriced.

Sorry, I didn't mean to tell you not to speak your mind.

I don't feel that I have to prove that illegal downloading has hurt the industries as I'm not putting it out there as justification for my position. You are, however, saying that since they seem (in your eyes anyway) to be doing great, that means that downloading is OK.

So in the next few years if the recording/movie industry suffers a downturn similar to the auto industry, would you change your position on downloading? You use their success as justification.

 

[lashicoN]

This arbitrary value thing is a red herring. If you steal my rifle, a value must be assigned for you to make recompense. Some rifles are worth more than the day they were sold, some are worth less. Perhaps you must pay the cost for me to replace the rifle. Any way you look at it, if you steal from me, we have to have a way to determine value for you to make me whole again.

By making this argument, aren't you agreeing that there is a large difference from stealing someone's property and downloading a copy of someone's property?

If your rifle is stolen from you, you do have to come up with a price, and it's probably the price to replace the stolen rifle. But when someone steals (downloads) a copy of a song, there is nothing to replace, so the value can be set at any ridiculous number, such as 75 billion dollars. Since there is nothing to replace (because it was just a copy, they still have the original to listen to and continue to sell), I would say that nothing has been stolen. Do you agree?

It's like going to a museum, taking a picture of a painting, and selling or giving away copies of the picture of the painting. The museum still has the original and the worth is still the same...because it's the original work. What has more worth, a clear picture bootleg copy of Star Wars, a Wal Mart copy of Star Wars, or the original reels of the film in Lucas' Death Star? I don't know where I'm going with this...just wanted to talk about Star Wars.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

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.

Then I'm sure you're OK with the fact that you can buy Windows Vista on sidewalks in China for a fraction of the price paid here? Same with movies, music, books, or whatever. Or does your take on piracy change as you cross international borders?

 

[Bunnykid68]

If I record an album and have someone sell it for me and you take and spend your money to copy my work and resell you would be violating my rights because I did not give you permission to sell my Music, Idea, Software, ETC...........

 

[lashicoN]

Sorry, I didn't mean to tell you not to speak your mind.

I don't feel that I have to prove that illegal downloading has hurt the industries as I'm not putting it out there as justification for my position. You are, however, saying that since they seem (in your eyes anyway) to be doing great, that means that downloading is OK.

So in the next few years if the recording/movie industry suffers a downturn similar to the auto industry, would you change your position on downloading? You use their success as justification.

I'm not trying to use their riches as justification to rip them off. I'm saying that I don't think downloading music or movies makes a difference one way or the other. From personal experience, the songs I downloaded and didn't purchase were songs I wouldn't have purchased and the songs I did download and liked led me to purchase the entire album. If anything, "free" downloading gave the music industry more money from my pocket.

I'm not stealing anything by watching a commercial or a preview of a movie. I'm not stealing anything by listening to 30 seconds of a song on Walmart.com or Amazon.com, but when I freely listen to 3 minutes of a song, I'm a thief? Gotcha! I'm not a thief, because I happened to be listening to the radio in this scenario. I bet you didn't see that coming.

Seriously though, I used Limewire to preview albums. If I liked them, I bought them, if I didn't, I didn't buy them. Honestly, record companies made more money from me using Limewire. I haven't downloaded a song in over a year. I also haven't purchased any music in over a year.

As far as you feeling as though you don't have to prove that downloading is causing this crash...I hate to tell you what to do after asking you to not tell me what to say...but you do have to. If you make an accusation like that, you have to have some reasons to back it up. Otherwise, maybe our two wars are causing these industries to tank. Can I prove it? Nope. Know what I mean?

 

[lashicoN]

If I record an album and have someone sell it for me and you take and spend your money to copy my work and resell you would be violating my rights because I did not give you permission to sell my Music, Idea, Software, ETC...........

As soon as you sold your item to me, you gave me permission to do anything I want with it, unless we both agreed to a sales contract that states otherwise.

Do you call Ford every time you put on new tires to make sure they are fine with altering the product they sold to you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Read the copyright laws. My CD would be like everyone out there now, stating that it was copyrighted and that you were not allowed to copy it for profit.

At least I think thats what it means when they are labeled
WARNING: All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So everyone is saying if I can make a Custom Kimber 1911 cheaper than they can and because I bought one for a $1000 that I can just start making(copying) them and selling them for $700

 

[lashicoN]

Read the copyright laws. My CD would be like everyone out there now, stating that it was copyrighted and that you were not allowed to copy it for profit.

At least I think thats what it means when they are labeled
WARNING: All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.

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.

If the cashier didn't have me sign or verbally agree to a contract upon the purchase of your CD, I am free to do as I wish with it, broken laws or not.

My moral code doesn't line up with our government moral code very often. It's a handicap.

 

[dross]

By making this argument, aren't you agreeing that there is a large difference from stealing someone's property and downloading a copy of someone's property?

The difference is in the nature of the type of property, not in the principle.

If your rifle is stolen from you, you do have to come up with a price, and it's probably the price to replace the stolen rifle. But when someone steals (downloads) a copy of a song, there is nothing to replace, so the value can be set at any ridiculous number, such as 75 billion dollars. Since there is nothing to replace (because it was just a copy, they still have the original to listen to and continue to sell), I would say that nothing has been stolen. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. What has been stolen is some of the VALUE of what belongs to me. If it only has the value of the one thing, then why do you need to copy what I've done? Make your own set of sounds and distribute them. According to your logic, all sets of sounds have very close to equal value when looked at as an individual unit. Again, your own desire to copy the item proves its value.

Okay, so if I counterfeit a bunch of money so well it can't be detected and use it to purchase things, nothing is stolen, right? I bought stuff, but I gave money that can be used again by the person who received it, so what was stolen? A bit of the value of everyone's money.

Don't like that one? How about if I spend millions perfecting a never before created mechanical device that will make everyone's life better but only costs pennies to make, should I only be able to sell the first one, and then anyone can make the object and sell it? Or are you against patent law as well?

It's like going to a museum, taking a picture of a painting, and selling or giving away copies of the picture of the painting. The museum still has the original and the worth is still the same...because it's the original work. What has more worth, a clear picture bootleg copy of Star Wars, a Wal Mart copy of Star Wars, or the original reels of the film in Lucas' Death Star? I don't know where I'm going with this...just wanted to talk about Star Wars.

You museum analogy doesn't hold. How about it's like going to a graphics art shop who is selling a poster and taking a perfect digital image of that poster in their window and then distributing that poster that everyone in the city is willing to pay twenty bucks for, for free. You will have stolen the value of that poster - twenty dollars X the number of people who would have purchased it, for the cost of copying it. Again, you reduce the real value of something - it's uniqueness and market desirability - to something that isn't worth much, the ability to make copies. Again, if the value is in the paper and the ink, produce your own image and distribute that.

As to Star Wars, when presented with your false dilemma, I'd have to say the reels are worth more. But all of those examples PALES when compared to the REAL value, the distribution rights. Without ability to sell many copies or viewings to many people, the value of all those other things you mentioned sink to the bottom of the ocean, or perhaps to the bottom of the dark star.