Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury - Page 11

NasEscobar · #**101** 10-05-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, yeah, punishing people for breaking laws, [censored] fascists.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, such a law.

please tell me how this hurts artists at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

they make less money? seems pretty easy to see.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are they entitled to the money they're making now?

DrewDevil · #**102** 10-05-2007, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But bands that are popular enough to get their CDs distributed widely are taking a huge hit as the result of file-sharing, and that's really not disputable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly is. This argument is the absolute worst one that the recording industry makes. There are two MAJOR flaws with it.

a) Music isnt an object. If someone downloads the music the record company has "lost" nothing besides the ability to later sell this music to that person. The fact that the recording industry actually takes how many songs have been downloaded, multiplies them by a dollar amount and claims that to be how much money they have "lost" is just a blatant lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, we didn't even mention a more obvious harm to the music industry, the ability for one person to illegally download a song and then distribute it for free to dozens, hundreds, thousands of other people.

Are you going to argue that none of those people would have bought the song either?

The defendant in this case could have just downloaded 1 song (99c) and cost the music industry far more than that by distributing it.

And again, this isn't a theoretical argument; we KNOW that piracy caused a huge dropoff in CD sales.

NasEscobar · #**103** 10-05-2007, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't seriously believe something has to be an "object" before you can sell it, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but how can you say I'm "stealing" from you if I don't even take anything from you? Me listening to your song for free hasn't deprived you of anything.
[ QUOTE ]
Music is property

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

DrewDevil · #**104** 10-05-2007, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't seriously believe something has to be an "object" before you can sell it, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but how can you say I'm "stealing" from you if I don't even take anything from you? Me listening to your song for free hasn't deprived you of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it has.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Music is property

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer is that federal law says so... for longer answer, take your question to Science, Math and Philosophy.

If you truly don't believe in property rights, then send me all your [censored].

CallMeIshmael · #**105** 10-05-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what happens if you tell the RIAA to shove it and not pay these "fees"? You go to jail right?

Seriously, Land of the Free, I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, yeah, punishing people for breaking laws, [censored] fascists.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, such a law.

please tell me how this hurts artists at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

they make less money? seems pretty easy to see.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are they entitled to the money they're making now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is entitlement relevant to a claim about whether or not piracy hurts musicians finanically? I mean, I can say the RICO act hurt the profits of gansters without implying that I feel gangsters are entitled to that money, cant I?

Anyway, you seem pretty against intellectual property, so, Ill ask you: should all IP laws, including stuff that protects drug inventors from having ripoffs being sold immediately, be repealed?

(also, to note: just to answer the question, I feel they are entitled to profit from music they make, because making the music gives them the right to set the price for it. Since you seem to not think IP is, itself, property, obv you disagree).

bogey1 · #**106** 10-05-2007, 04:18 PM

I firmly believe pirating is wrong (film, music, games, wahtever). Whether you would have bought it in the first place is irrelevant. It's my work and it's my right to be compensated if you use my work. If you can't afford it, that doesn't imbue you with a sudden right to my work for free.

That said, the RIAA is idiotic about actual financial loss. As was mentioned, only a percentage of pirates (and I include in this anyone they give it to) would ever have spent money anyway.

Second, there's a good number of people that will buy <u>because</u> they listened to a pirated copy. I've gotten rips of songs before and then gone and bought the actual CD because it got me interested in the band.

Third, the major labels attribute their 20% downswing to piracy. However, it could easily be attributable to just sucking. Many people, myself included, are getting CD's or mp3's directly from artists themselves via other mechanisms (CD-baby for instance). With things like iTunes people are also choosing to buy individual songs rather than full CDs.

With technology exposing more bands in an easy-to-find format, you're going to see more "long tail" sales and fewer "hit album" sales.

A significant chunk of that 20% may very well be people going moving to the "long tail" because they've found in that what they really wanted, rather than settling for the more mainstream artist that just didn't cut it for them.

NasEscobar · #**107** 10-05-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't seriously believe something has to be an "object" before you can sell it, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but how can you say I'm "stealing" from you if I don't even take anything from you? Me listening to your song for free hasn't deprived you of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it has

[/ QUOTE ]
No I haven't. You are in the exact same state you were before. You are not entitled to something just because you would be better off if you did have it.
[ QUOTE ]
Short answer is that federal law says so...

[/ QUOTE ]
You are confusing morality and ethics with legality. Just because the law says so doesn't make it right.
[ QUOTE ]
If you truly don't believe in property rights, then send me all your [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
When did I say I don't believe in property rights?

miajag · #**108** 10-05-2007, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't seriously believe something has to be an "object" before you can sell it, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but how can you say I'm "stealing" from you if I don't even take anything from you? Me listening to your song for free hasn't deprived you of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it has

[/ QUOTE ]
No I haven't. You are in the exact same state you were before. You are not entitled to something just because you would be better off if you did have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Read a [censored] book on property law, or better yet, just stop posting.

KotOD · #**109** 10-05-2007, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's good that there are speedlimits, and if you made the punishments commensurable with the POSSIBLE damages of speeding, the tickets would be like 1,000 bucks a pop. But since everyone does it that would be unfair and unfeasible. So they charge you enough to slow people down a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Virginia to issue $3000 speeding fines

DrewDevil · #**110** 10-05-2007, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

No, but how can you say I'm "stealing" from you if I don't even take anything from you? Me listening to your song for free hasn't deprived you of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really, really dumb.

I'm a lawyer and my inventory is, quite literally, time. I am paid for the number of hours I work on a project. My hourly rate is determined by the market, my experience and my expertise.

If I do work for you and send you a bill and then you don't pay, you have stolen from me, even if I don't give you anything tanglible. You haven't "deprived" me of anything either, and yet you have stolen.

Thus it is with music, another non-tangible thing of value.

If you do not agree with this, please punch yourself in the face until you are unconscious.