|
|
#311
10-09-2007, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Only if copyright were consistent with patent or vice-versa. [/ QUOTE ] what do you mean? [/ QUOTE ] If a guy takes a dump on a post card and frames it, his rights to it last life plus 70 years. If a guy invents a feces repellent post card, his rights to it last 20 years. 136 years for dump on post card, 20 years for microfiber post card. It's shameful. Even more shameful is what the patent office is willing to issue patents for, and the things people are even allowed to copyright. [/ QUOTE ] I dont think you understood the question you quoted 2 posts ago. 
|
|
#312
10-09-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you understood the question you quoted 2 posts ago. [/ QUOTE ] I understood it very clearly, you condescending douche. I would be fine with that person being sued for damages, ONLY IF copyright and patent laws held some semblance of similarity.
|
|
#313
10-09-2007, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I dont think you understood the question you quoted 2 posts ago. [/ QUOTE ] I understood it very clearly, you condescending douche. I would be fine with that person being sued for damages, ONLY IF copyright and patent laws held some semblance of similarity. [/ QUOTE ] So, you're saying that if the contract says "I buy this CD with the knowledge that I cannot distribute it for X years", then the contract WHICH THE PERSON HAS FREELY AGREED TO SIGN is valid for some values of X but not for others? (and somehow patent laws are relevant to this) Im not asking if you WOULD sign the contract. Im asking if the contract is legally binding. edit: just in case this isnt clear: these arent copyright laws.(hence why I was like "wtf" to your post) This is a person signing a contract saying what he wont do for some period of time. Your reply is like saying "If a person signs a contract saying he wont sell the car he just bought for 10 years, and if he does he owes Jon money, then the contract isnt valid because of patent laws." We arent enforcing copyright laws; we are enforcing an agreement between two parties, that just happens to be like current copyright law.
|
|
#314
10-09-2007, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Nah I have a ton of pirated music I just don't delude myself into thinking that it's ok. [/ QUOTE ]I didn't say its ok. the recording industry needs to find a way that purchasing music is as convenient/easy (ie cheap) as downloading free music. [/ QUOTE ] As cheap as free music?!?! [/ QUOTE ]I think a legally owned CD in digital format, that cost my $5 is pretty damn cheap. I would probably spend $50 a month on music. [/ QUOTE ] seriously. i think a $500 ferrari would be cool too. [/ QUOTE ]I don't see how your post has any semblance of "point" to it.
|
|
#315
10-09-2007, 03:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] What the [censored] is your problem? It should be pretty obvious based on my posts I don't see music as property, and this isn't like some "out there" point of view, it's supported by a lot people. I guess none of them have read a book on property law though. [/ QUOTE ] I dont know about the books theyve read, but im pretty sure theyve never created any art. Sorry for the grunch but I couldnt take it anymore. You really dont see the irony of having a screenname and avatar of a musical artist on top of all this?
|
|
#316
10-09-2007, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] They just record it once and then it's reproduced thousands of times on CD or on hard drives. [/ QUOTE ] This is true for most any manufactured good. The cost to produce is much less than the price, the difference between them the margin of profit. Intellectual goods are "high margin". If you create a single non-nanufactured thing, you sell it at a high price because you sell it once. For something you're going to sell over and over, you charge less hoping to recoup your investment (and then some) over a large number of sales. The fact that intellectual goods are almost free to product doesn't change the manufacturing "high margin" and "recoup investment" realities. People (pro-piracy) folks often argue "It's not the same as stealing a book from the bookstore, that's physical". Well, yes, it is the same, the level of sameness depending on the margin. You're stealing the "margin" in both cases. In the case of the book, you're also stealing the raw material cost as well. [/ QUOTE ] I dont think ive ever heard it stated this succinctly. Very well said.
|
|
#318
10-09-2007, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Nah I have a ton of pirated music I just don't delude myself into thinking that it's ok. [/ QUOTE ] Define "ok." If you mean "legal," then I would say most people are smart enough to realize that what they're doing is illegal. If by ok you mean morally, then uhh wtf dude. You think what you're doing is wrong AND it's illegal yet you're still doing it? That's completely retarded. What's worse is that you're judging people for doing something that you do yourself. [/ QUOTE ] Until the post you quoted, all I've done in this thread say that "everyone does it" and "they waited too long to start enforcing it" are both illogical arguments. [/ QUOTE ] Illogical argument? What am I arguing? I never said that just because this is the case the laws should be treated as void. I am saying that this is what HAS happened. People aren't respecting the law because it has not been enforced, and the government has nobody but themselves to blame for that. You never did answer my question though, what does "ok" mean to you? I don't go around repeatedly doing things that I think are wrong that are also illegal. If I felt that downloading free music was wrong I certainly wouldn't be doing it. I personally think it's harmless at this point, and I don't know of any convenient alternatives, so I'm completely content with myself. If I understood the post of yours I quoted correctly, it's basically like saying "Nah I'm married and have sex with tons of women, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it's ok." Wtf is that supposed to justify it or something?
|
|
#319
10-09-2007, 07:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
I came across this website where the RIAA is letting people settle their cases online.
https://www.p2plawsuits.com/P2P_01_Instructions.aspx Apparently they are mass-producing these lawsuits, they just aren't getting much publicity since most people are settling.
|
|
#320
10-09-2007, 08:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently they are mass-producing these lawsuits, they just aren't getting much publicity since most people are settling. [/ QUOTE ] This was the first case to make it to the finish line. The RIAA has quit when they've had losers get near the end. Here's the home of the rebel alliance. The site includes instructions for college students who might become RIAA targets.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
