PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's views on the RIAA?




nbhadja
10-20-2007, 12:17 PM
Isn't it a violation of privacy how the RIAA goes to such extremes to stop copyright violations??

TechnoGuyRob
10-20-2007, 12:20 PM
No...

The RIAA attempts to do it through legal means. It sucks that they're so militant about it, but there's nothing illegal/violated.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-20-2007, 12:21 PM
It's a private organization. What extremes are you talking about? Each state should have their own copyright laws.

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 12:22 PM
No...

The RIAA attempts to do it through legal means. It sucks that they're so militant about it, but there's nothing illegal/violated.

That's debatable. I don't think their "contract" with the end user is legally defensible in reality. I certainly have not signed an agreement to give up ownership rights over MY property when I purchase a CD. In order for the contract to be legally viable, I have to have agreed to it in writing.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-20-2007, 12:23 PM
That's debatable. I don't think their "contract" with the end user is legally defensible in reality. I certainly have not signed an agreement to give up ownership rights over MY property when I purchase a CD. In order for the contract to be legally viable, I have to have agreed to it in writing.

Yeah. It depends on state law and what the agreements are when you purchase it

jaumen
10-20-2007, 12:23 PM
I would hope that he is at least for copyright reform. Sure, companies have a right to protect their property, but the penalties associated with downloading a single song are ludicrous. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

0zzy
10-20-2007, 12:26 PM
RIAA/MPAA really suck ass.

but that's the private market for ya.
the government market would be worse, though.

MS0453
10-20-2007, 12:27 PM
I wonder if he's against I.P. though. (I think it's the one thing I've never heard his position/opinion on) I know "austro-libertarians" are against it, and he basically associates with that school of thought, so I would imagine that he might be against it as well.

Anybody know his position?

JosephTheLibertarian
10-20-2007, 12:29 PM
I would hope that he is at least for copyright reform. Sure, companies have a right to protect their property, but the penalties associated with downloading a single song are ludicrous. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Maybe that's why lawmakers should be in charge of it at the state level? We have to begin by removing the corporate status in America.

dircha
10-20-2007, 12:31 PM
Isn't it a violation of privacy how the RIAA goes to such extremes to stop copyright violations??

Your problem isn't the RIAA.

Your problem is that your favorite recording artists freely enter into legally binding agreements with RIAA member organizations, in order to pursue their dream of becoming rich, famous recording artists.

Despite what many young people seem to believe, the RIAA is not some kind government-imposed, universal music oligarchy. The RIAA and its member organizations only have rights to control the music of your favorite artists, because your favorite artists, despite how they may portray themselves as anti-establishment or radical anarchists, sold out to the RIAA because they - in spite of what you would like to believe - hoped to be come rich and popular.

Look it's this simple: you can stop worrying about the RIAA when you stop supporting artists who have sold out to them.

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 12:31 PM
I highly recommend reading "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella for anyone out there who wants to know why they are incompatible with a libertarian point of view:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T1lJQPPB5pQJ:www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf+Kinsella+%2B+Against+Intellectual+Prope rty&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 12:37 PM
I highly recommend reading "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella for anyone out there who wants to know why they are incompatible with a libertarian point of view:RP I think is more of a Constitutionalist than a true libertarian. Remember that the Constitution makes an allowance for Congress to establish "ip" laws.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 12:39 PM
I don't think their "contract" with the end user is legally defensible in reality. I certainly have not signed an agreement to give up ownership rights over MY property when I purchase a CD. In order for the contract to be legally viable, I have to have agreed to it in writing.There is no contract.

There is a license. When you buy music you are subject to that license. Federal copyright law protects this. This has NOTHING to do with contracts.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-20-2007, 12:39 PM
RP I think is more of a Constitutionalist than a true libertarian. Remember that the Constitution makes an allowance for Congress to establish "ip" laws.

Where?

DrNoZone,

I'm reading it.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 12:40 PM
Yeah. It depends on state law and what the agreements are when you purchase itThere really are not agreements when you buy music. All works of art fixed in a tangible medium of expression are subject to US federal copyright law. The States have NOTHING to do with it.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-20-2007, 12:42 PM
There really are not agreements when you buy music. All works of art fixed in a tangible medium of expression are subject to US federal copyright law. The States have NOTHING to do with it.

Unconstitutional?

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 12:45 PM
There is no contract.

There is a license. When you buy music you are subject to that license. Federal copyright law protects this. This has NOTHING to do with contracts.

Wordplay. They treat it like a contract when the prosecute you for breaking it.

Karsten
10-20-2007, 12:51 PM
RIAA/MPAA really suck ass.

but that's the private market for ya.
the government market would be worse, though.

How is it free market? It takes the government to enforce their lawsuits. I see criminalizing voluntary file sharing as regulation of the internet.

jaumen
10-20-2007, 12:53 PM
How is it free market? It takes the government to enforce their lawsuits. I see criminalizing voluntary file sharing as regulation of the internet.

I do agree there for sure.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 01:09 PM
How is it free market? It takes the government to enforce their lawsuits. I see criminalizing voluntary file sharing as regulation of the internet.

Then you see incorrectly. It's a copyright violation.

If the creators of works aren't getting paid for their creations, they'll eventually stop creating.

Dr Paul is all about you keeping the fruits of your labor.

If you labored to write music and lyrics, and I started giving it away for free when that type of work is how you pay your bills, you'd die hungry and homeless while I gave away the fruits of your labor at no cost to me, something I have no right to do.

It's theft, plain and simple. If you didn't create it, you can't give copies of it away for free, nor for a profit unless you have an agreement with the creator so he gets his or her cut.

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 01:10 PM
Then you see incorrectly. It's a copyright violation.

If the creators of works aren't getting paid for their creations, they'll eventually stop creating.

Dr Paul is all about you keeping the fruits of your labor.

If you labored to write music and lyrics, and I started giving it away for free when that type of work is how you pay your bills, you'd die hungry and homeless while I gave away the fruits of your labor for nothing.

They'll stop creating eh? Instead of coming up with new and creative ways of making money off of their creations? Government protectionism is NOT the answer. Getting MORE creative IS.

nbhadja
10-20-2007, 01:18 PM
Actually CD sales have increased despite the downloading. And almost always, songs from popular artists (who already make millions a year) are downloaded. Very rarely will someone download a song from a struggling musician.
Think of it this way, with the RIAA suing 10 year old girls, dead people, college students, and a total of 20000 people for 10000 per song they really take away their lfruits of labor lol.

BarryDonegan
10-20-2007, 01:47 PM
this is all so far from whats really going on. first off, the record industry is still humping the dead animal that is the CD media. the only reason they have not adapted and created a new form of media that works with the modern climate is because most of the record companies have corporatized to the point where they can't take any risks, because they will lose their stockholders if they don't maintain their bottom line, so they prefer to lose money, downsize, then merge.

RIAA will not successfully litigate file sharing away, first off they have only gotten one landmark case, and only for someone posting on a P2P server, the type of which most cable providers will disconnect your service for using in the first place. most bands on the up-and-up don't mind when you steal their music, bc they dont' get any money from cds in the first place, and it helps your popularity grow, which increases the number of people at your tourdates, which tour gate and merchandizing is where, at least I, make money.

bear in mind that this is all emergency damage control bc almost every cd retailer has disappeared in the last year, and the only surviving ones are things like Best Buy and Walmart who are selling cds as a loss leader. They are both cutting back their shelf space by 60% next year, which IMO will effectively kill the record label and the CD.

already indie distros such as Lumberjack have died off, which takes anyone whose not a top 5 major label push and makes the number of records they can ship shrivel to nearly nothing. a 60% reduction in best buy will kill people like Britney Spears even, bc they will not remove their catalogue artists who appeal to people who are older and less tech savvy to carry her new releases. effectively, you will have to compete for shelf space with the Beatles, and you will not win. when this happens most labels who were reliant on shipping to retail will totally collapse... their business models do not provide for a way to make profit without being able to ship millions of cds to stores on consignment. this will not transfer to digital downloads or any other method of sale, as its stll perfectly legit for two friends to transfer an mp3 to each other, and most artists are giving their music away for free. to be honest if labels go freezing your record bc they can't get it shipped, i think most artists now would be willing to break the law and let it out for free simply because the labels may not be rich enough to litigate and enforce it, especially if they dont seem to have a long term plan for recouping their investment anyways.

essentially, this is almost a moot point, because the RIAA wont have any money to litigate, nor will licensors of recorded music, because barring someone creating a service which pays the artist or liscensee for ad revenues during an advertiser sponsored download, there is currently no real market for consumer payment for recorded music.

since you can use protools and make a pretty solid recording cheap now, there doesn't really need to be in order to be sustainable as an artist.

BarryDonegan
10-20-2007, 01:55 PM
Actually CD sales have increased despite the downloading. And almost always, songs from popular artists (who already make millions a year) are downloaded. Very rarely will someone download a song from a struggling musician.


whoa man, definately not. CD retail has declined so bad that its almost over forever.

how many labels have fallen apart in the past two years? where did all the retail cd stores go?

when we negotiated our last record, we signed eventually with KOCH records, which is a new york indie owned by canadian ROW entertainment, somewhat big sized one, we were also negotiating with V2 records, who now doesn't exist, leaving bands like moby, white stripes, chemical bros, and gang of four without a label temporarily, and 3 of the majors we had been talking to no longer exist.

labels are dying at record speed, and retailers are gone.

when our record last came out, 4 of the major retailers that we shipped most of our records to nationally, tower records, camelot, sam goody, media play etc... i dont think these retailers exist at all anymore.

record sales have gone down every quarter for the past few years, and they are about to slip under the point to where the media is totally valueless.

also, as a touring artist whose demographic slips under to the 13-18 demographic, i can tell you now that most children that age(who are one of the biggest purveyors of the music coming out) have not ever bought a cd, and haven't owned a cd player. they are ipod kids, and they don't buy digital downloads ;)

they line up at our merch booth and buy shirts. and they sing along....

and i don't mind at all that they dont buy cds. i get 6 cents off the damn things, and 5 bucks off a shirt.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Where?Article I Section 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 02:28 PM
Wordplay. They treat it like a contract when the prosecute you for breaking it.How so?

Oh, and you dont get prosecuted for breach of contract or infringement of copyrights. Both are torts (in most cases) in which one is sued in civil court as opposed to being charged in criminal court.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 02:36 PM
most bands on the up-and-up don't mind when you steal their music, I think you mean "infringe on their copyright". Because stealing someone's music is like shoplifting but copyright infringement isn't even close to the same thing.




to be honest if labels go freezing your record bc they can't get it shipped, i think most artists now would be willing to break the law and let it out for free simply because the labels may not be rich enough to litigate and enforce it, especially if they dont seem to have a long term plan for recouping their investment anyways.It isnt breaking the law, it would be breaching their contract. And the labels are HUGE (Warner Brothers, Universal etc) so I dont think they'll run out of money. Plus NO artist wants to alienate their label because it's how they get promotion.



since you can use protools and make a pretty solid recording cheap now, there doesn't really need to be in order to be sustainable as an artist.Well, currently there are few ways to get an artist promoted other than through a label. The function of the label is not dead, but I would say severely reduced. No longer does the artist have to rely on the label for recording, or album sales. However, tour support, general PR/publicity and promotion of a specific album, including radio play, are still important functions of a label.

Karsten
10-20-2007, 02:36 PM
It's all scare tactics. I've downloaded 100's of songs from limewire and nobody's ever banged down the door.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 02:45 PM
They'll stop creating eh? Instead of coming up with new and creative ways of making money off of their creations? Government protectionism is NOT the answer. Getting MORE creative IS.

How are they going to make money when the likes of you are flooding the market with copies that they never see a penny from, huh?

Explain that to me, since I'm obviously not connecting. :rolleyes:

Korey Kaczynski
10-20-2007, 02:46 PM
Additionally the absurdly strict fines are a result of lobbying.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 02:55 PM
I love how people come to love RP because of his respect for the Constitution, but then I have to shake my head in disappointment over the hypocrisy of some people when it comes to things like copyrights and IP.

They fall into the trap of being just like the Dems or GOPers: they only cite the Constitution when it's to their benefit and ignore it when they are in opposition to it.

It's sad, really.

Cowlesy
10-20-2007, 03:00 PM
I use iTunes. Not to spend money, or save it from purchasing the entire CD like I would have to do if iTunes didn't exist, but because I wanted this song that an artist wrote and sang, and he deserved his $0.66 cents from me, which in my opinion, was a VERY fair price for his labor---in fact advantageous to me for the enjoyment I will receive from listening to the m4p.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 03:06 PM
I use iTunes. Not to spend money, or save it from purchasing the entire CD like I would have to do if iTunes didn't exist, but because I wanted this song that an artist wrote and sang, and he deserved his $0.66 cents from me, which in my opinion, was a VERY fair price for his labor---in fact advantageous to me for the enjoyment I will receive from listening to the m4p.

Hate to break it to you, but an artist isn't getting anywhere close to 66 cents when you buy a song of Itunes. Almost all of it goes to the label.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 03:16 PM
How are they going to make money when the likes of you are flooding the market with copies that they never see a penny from, huh?

Explain that to me, since I'm obviously not connecting. :rolleyes:

First off, it's not the governments place to ensure that your failed business model is a success. There are plenty of ways to make money besides selling cds. As the one guy has stated already, concerts and tours, merchandise, etc. And, believe it or not, you can STILL make money selling CDs, because there are people out there who WANT to support artists and there are people who want a physical copy of something, or simply find it more convenient for whatever reason.

The RIAA and current copyright laws do very little for the artist.

leipo
10-20-2007, 03:17 PM
It's theft, plain and simple. If you didn't create it, you can't give copies of it away for free, nor for a profit unless you have an agreement with the creator so he gets his or her cut.

Are you talking about mp3's? If it's theft it has to be an exact copy and the last time i checked CD data & MP3 data vastly differs.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 03:21 PM
Article I, Section 8 - The Powers of Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Case closed.

And to Leipo: Derivative works of copyrighted materials still require the consent of the copyright holder unless the portion used is so small as to cause no injury to the original author (such as quoting a statement or paragraph from a text--i.e. The "Fair Use" Doctrine).

Even P. Diddy had to get permission for all the music he sampled/ripped-off, whether from Jimmy Paige or Sting.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 03:21 PM
I love how people come to love RP because of his respect for the Constitution, but then I have to shake my head in disappointment over the hypocrisy of some people when it comes to things like copyrights and IP.

They fall into the trap of being just like the Dems or GOPers: they only cite the Constitution when it's to their benefit and ignore it when they are in opposition to it.
It's sad, really.

The last time I checked the constitution, the type of copyright that it talks about is significantly different than what exists in our country today. I absolutely support the constitution on copyright law. I absolutely oppose the draconian copyright law that we actually have.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 03:29 PM
The last time I checked the constitution, the type of copyright that it talks about is significantly different than what exists in our country today. I absolutely support the constitution on copyright law. I absolutely oppose the draconian copyright law that we actually have.

You're grasping at straws, but go ahead and expound.

It's a general power, which means they can make the copyright laws as expansive as they need be to protect the property rights of the copyright holder.

Sad fact is that most of the original authors sign over much of their rights to get it published. That doesn't justify anyone dishonoring the copyright holder's right to property.

I think it's a much better approach to allow for it to be fought out in court than the government coming in and monitoring everything you do so that they can make sure you aren't pirating the info.

leipo
10-20-2007, 03:36 PM
And to Leipo: Derivative works of copyrighted materials still require the consent of the copyright holder unless the portion used is so small as to cause no injury to the original author (such as quoting a statement or paragraph from a text--i.e. The "Fair Use" Doctrine).

Even P. Diddy had to get permission for all the music he sampled/ripped-off, whether from Jimmy Paige or Sting.

I know. You are right. I should have added an "IMO".

fcofer
10-20-2007, 03:42 PM
It's a general power, which means they can make the copyright laws as expansive as they need be to protect the property rights of the copyright holder.

I don't think so. The goal of the legislation must be to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS, not protect monopolists. Ergo, the grant monopoly protection should be only so much as necessary to promote such progress.

In fact, such protection is only supposed to be granted for "limited times". Do you think that the framers contemplated 70 years AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR to be "limited"? Is someone really going to decide not to create a new record or book because his grandchildren won't collect royalties?

(OT: On the subject of whether copyright is even a good idea in any amount, don't forget that Bach and Mozart created their works in the absence of copyright, btw.)

My point is that pointing your finger at the copyright clause in the Constitution and saying, "Looky there, all these copyright statutes are clearly Constitutional!" is a somewhat shaky argument. It's this sort of nonsense that greatly expanded federal power when they used the same tactic with the commerce clause.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 03:43 PM
It's all scare tactics. I've downloaded 100's of songs from limewire and nobody's ever banged down the door.No one gets sued for downloading, they get sued for uploading. Uploading or distributing copyrighted material is contrary to copyright law.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Well, I certainly don't think I'm grasping at straws. Let's take a look at it shall we?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The very first part of this clause states that the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. When congress retroactively extends copyright on already existing works, this only HARMS the progress of science and useful arts.

The next part says "by securing for limited times". My how the times have changed. Copyright was originally 14 years, I believe. Now it has effectively become perpetual. The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as you make copyright terms an actual number, you can keep passing laws to increase that number, and it doesn't violate the constitution. So right now, when copyright is about to expire on stuff, the corporations just lobby congress to extend the copyright. That really adheres to the spirit of the constitution, eh?

And finally, it says that it secures these rights for authors and inventors. As you said yourself, these people unfortunately sign away their copyrights to large corporations, which is a shame. But just think about this for a minute. Copyright is supposed to give artists incentive to create works... but... artists sign away their copyrights to someone else... so... who really has the incentive for there to be strong copyright laws, the artists? I doubt it.

Edit: well, it looks like someone already made these points while I was typing it up :p

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 03:46 PM
And to Leipo: Derivative works of copyrighted materials still require the consent of the copyright holder unless the portion used is so small as to cause no injury to the original author (such as quoting a statement or paragraph from a text--i.e. The "Fair Use" Doctrine).Not exactly true. Fair use is for the amount and substantiality of what was infringed. Using ANY part of someone else's copyrighted work is an infringement in the letter of the law. However if the amount and substantiality is minimal, a fair use defense might be used. Statutory infringement and actual damages are not one in the same.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 03:48 PM
I don't think so. The goal of the legislation must be to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS, not protect monopolists. Ergo, the grant monopoly protection should be only so much as necessary to promote such progress.

In fact, such protection is only supposed to be granted for "limited times". Do you think that the framers contemplated 70 years AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR to be "limited"? Is someone really going to decide not to create a new record or book because his grandchildren won't collect royalties?

(OT: On the subject of whether copyright is even a good idea in any amount, don't forget that Bach and Mozart created their works in the absence of copyright, btw.)

My point is that pointing your finger at the copyright clause in the Constitution and saying, "Looky there, all these copyright statutes are clearly Constitutional!" is a somewhat shaky argument. It's this sort of nonsense that greatly expanded federal power when they used the same tactic with the commerce clause.

What the hell?! Do you honestly not realize that a copyright is a government backed monopoly?

M.Bellmore
10-20-2007, 03:49 PM
No one gets sued for downloading, they get sued for uploading. Uploading or distributing copyrighted material is contrary to copyright law.

Except if yer a geezer with no computer or a 6 year old. Then they'll getcha :mad:

Chrispy
10-20-2007, 03:51 PM
I download music, movies, and software, lots of it. In my day hundreds of thousands of dollars (not exaggerating) of pirated stuff has passed through my computers. This is the internet, and why it is so beautiful. It by nature is a free unregulated society, and this is what happens in a free unregulated society.

No one is hurting anyone we're just sharing music, movies, software. Most of this crap we would never buy anyway, sure they may be losing some profits. Tough titties, deal with it, figure out how to market your product differently. The RIAA would have the entire internet freshly outfitted with barbed wire, fees, and surveillance cameras, just to protect their 10% profit margin that they can't even prove is actually being damaged by file sharing.

So I see this as the perfect reason for some civil disobedience. I refuse to support an organization that would use such draconian tactics against their own customers. I for one NEVER buy music for this reason. If they want to alienate me fine, I'm not gonna be a customer. That is the way it works.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 04:01 PM
Well, I certainly don't think I'm grasping at straws. Let's take a look at it shall we?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The very first part of this clause states that the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. When congress retroactively extends copyright on already existing works, this only HARMS the progress of science and useful arts.

The next part says "by securing for limited times". My how the times have changed. Copyright was originally 14 years, I believe. Now it has effectively become perpetual. The Supreme Court has ruled that as long as you make copyright terms an actual number, you can keep passing laws to increase that number, and it doesn't violate the constitution. So right now, when copyright is about to expire on stuff, the corporations just lobby congress to extend the copyright. That really adheres to the spirit of the constitution, eh?

And finally, it says that it secures these rights for authors and inventors. As you said yourself, these people unfortunately sign away their copyrights to large corporations, which is a shame. But just think about this for a minute. Copyright is supposed to give artists incentive to create works... but... artists sign away their copyrights to someone else... so... who really has the incentive for there to be strong copyright laws, the artists? I doubt it.

Edit: well, it looks like someone already made these points while I was typing it up :p

1) Okay, honestly, if there is no guarantee that you are going to make some scratch off an idea, you are very unlikely to risk the capital needed to produce the new development. It's the legal security of offering the copyright that in fact promotes that progress by protecting the right of its creator to make a living off of his work.

2) The life of the author plus 70 years is still a time limit, like you said (but have you considered that allowing a person to live of their creations for the rest of their life as a means to secure an income is a good thing, maybe; also, if you just make the copyright for the life of the creator, that gives competitors an incentive to snuff them out, so the life of the author without some waiting period after is kind of bad).

Seems your problem here is not the Constitution or the copyright itself, but the lobbyists and the corporations. However, there is another factor you aren't considering: tax law. The governments of the world compete with copyright limits because they can essentially tax the damned things. The lobbyists are part of the problem, but it's really the tax and spend politicians that are where the blame squarely lies.

3) I've never been a fan of corporations either. The state shouldn't grant limits on liability. The owners of the corporation instead should get together and decide how to handle an liability issues they face amongst themselves.

fcofer
10-20-2007, 04:05 PM
What the hell?! Do you honestly not realize that a copyright is a government backed monopoly?

Yes, copyright protection is a government-granted monopoly, and that grant of monopoly is only constitutionally permitted to the extent that it PROMOTES SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS... yadda yadda. What part of my earlier post indicated otherwise to you?

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 04:06 PM
Yes, copyright protection is a government-granted monopoly, and that grant of monopoly is only constitutionally permitted to the extent that it PROMOTES SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS... yadda yadda. What part of my earlier post indicated otherwise to you?

The ability to obtain a copyright in general promoters science and the useful arts. You seem to think it apt to apply the principle in reverse order: B must come before A.

The simple fact is that in this case A is what secures B.

Read #1 of my last post.

fcofer
10-20-2007, 04:13 PM
The life of the author plus 70 years is still a time limit, like you said (but have you considered that allowing a person to live of their creations for the rest of their life as a means to secure an income is a good thing, maybe; also, if you just make the copyright for the life of the creator, that gives competitors an incentive to snuff them out, so the life of the author without some waiting period after is kind of bad).

I'm going to have to admit that the Supreme Court is with you on this one (Eldred v. Ashcroft). However, your position (and the Court's) is preposterous. The point of encouraging creation of art and science is so that it can be used by the public -- not so that it can benefit the creator. The idea that an individual could be sued for making drawings of Mickey Mouse or singing Happy Birthday, many decades after these works were created, is anathaema to the public interest. Plus, Congress has no power to make a law to protect artists from being "snuffed out" -- it can only create copyright laws to promote science and the useful arts.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 04:31 PM
I think that just about everything that needs to be said here has probably been said, but I would like to make one final point, while reiterating that I am not against reasonable copyright laws, but rather the ones that currently exist.

The recent high profile case where the RIAA won, requiring someone to have to pay over $200,000 shows precisely what is wrong with our current copyright laws.

A person was made to pay over $200,000 just for some fairly minor copyright violation! Is this really America? She downloads a few songs, so we hit her for more than she is probably worth, effectively destroying her financially? Do we penalize someone this hard when they shoplift a few cds from the store? Isn't shoplifting a few cds from the store actually a much worse crime, since someone is actually being directly harmed by it?

I would argue that there is not a single person on this forum who has not violated copyright law at least once in their lifetime. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. Should all of us be financially ruined for the rest of our lives because of this? No? Then, only those who are caught should be punished that hard, or perhaps we just need to make examples of a few people?

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 04:38 PM
I'm going to have to admit that the Supreme Court is with you on this one (Eldred v. Ashcroft). However, your position (and the Court's) is preposterous. The point of encouraging creation of art and science is so that it can be used by the public -- not so that it can benefit the creator. The idea that an individual could be sued for making drawings of Mickey Mouse or singing Happy Birthday, many decades after these works were created, is anathaema to the public interest. Plus, Congress has no power to make a law to protect artists from being "snuffed out" -- it can only create copyright laws to promote science and the useful arts.

What then is a useful art? That's pretty subjective.

Also, I see nowhere in the clause that establishes this general power of Congress any mention of where it must be of use to the public.

Care to explain where you pulled that out of, because the stink all over that particular explaination of yours causes me to think you pulled it out of your pooper.

foofighter20x
10-20-2007, 04:42 PM
I think that just about everything that needs to be said here has probably been said, but I would like to make one final point, while reiterating that I am not against reasonable copyright laws, but rather the ones that currently exist.

The recent high profile case where the RIAA won, requiring someone to have to pay over $200,000 shows precisely what is wrong with our current copyright laws.

A person was made to pay over $200,000 just for some fairly minor copyright violation! Is this really America? She downloads a few songs, so we hit her for more than she is probably worth, effectively destroying her financially? Do we penalize someone this hard when they shoplift a few cds from the store? Isn't shoplifting a few cds from the store actually a much worse crime, since someone is actually being directly harmed by it?

I would argue that there is not a single person on this forum who has not violated copyright law at least once in their lifetime. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. Should all of us be financially ruined for the rest of our lives because of this? No? Then, only those who are caught should be punished that hard, or perhaps we just need to make examples of a few people?

Question: What was the cost of her actions to the company? If she uploaded enough to cause $200,000 of lost revenue to the company, then she should be liable for it.

However, I think that whatever amount is determined in damages should be left to a jury per the 7th amendment.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 04:50 PM
Question: What was the cost of her actions to the company? If she uploaded enough to cause $200,000 of lost revenue to the company, then she should be liable for it.

However, I think that whatever amount is determined in damages should be left to a jury per the 7th amendment.

The problem is they don't sue for actual damages. They got $9,250 for each of 24 songs. The RIAA has stated in court that their profit on a song is about 70 cents each.

In court, the RIAA could not prove that the woman had distributed the files to anyone. If you do the math, she would have had to share each and every song more than 13,000 times for the damage to even approach those values.

fcofer
10-20-2007, 04:59 PM
What then is a useful art? That's pretty subjective.

I don't see how this is relevant. Do you have some novel interpretation of "useful art" that would change this discussion in some way?


Also, I see nowhere in the clause that establishes this general power of Congress any mention of where it must be of use to the public.

Care to explain where you pulled that out of, because the stink all over that particular explaination of yours causes me to think you pulled it out of your pooper.

The point of the power is to enable Congress to make laws in order to benefit the public by making more art and science available to the public. Despite what you may believe, the Constitution was not created in order to guarantee certain individuals or businesses a livelihood.

You do agree that the Constitution prohibits Congress from granting a permanent grant of monopoly under the Copyright Clause, don't you? Why else would the Framers include a time limit?

I think that you need to spend more time on shoring up your constitutional jurisprudence, and less time crafting vulgarities. I am not interested in continuing the discussion if you are unwilling or unable to make arguments in good faith.

Zarxrax
10-20-2007, 05:00 PM
Ah, I finally found the figures I was looking for.

The MINIMUM penalty for a copyright violation is $750 per violation.

foofighter20x, I'm wondering if you have permission from the copyright holder to use that copyrighted image from a Foo Fighter CD cover as your avatar? Are you really willing to pay $750 (or potentially many 10s of thousands of dollars) for that usage?

freedominnumbers
10-20-2007, 06:01 PM
(OT: On the subject of whether copyright is even a good idea in any amount, don't forget that Bach and Mozart created their works in the absence of copyright, btw.)


Heh, just had to. See below.


Mozart left Salzburg in 1781 to seek his fortune in Vienna. He married there in 1782. Mozart made his living performing and selling his compositions and giving music lessons. No longer a child prodigy he had difficulty earning sufficient income to support a family. He died in poverty in 1791.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 06:12 PM
No one is hurting anyone we're just sharing music, movies, software. Most of this crap we would never buy anyway, sure they may be losing some profits.That is true. Their actual damages are pretty much nil. As information becomes infinite, price becomes zero. So while no one loses profit really, whether or not they lose potential profit is arguable, but whether or not the law has been broken or a tort has been committed, is really not. Keep in mind though this only refers to sharing.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 06:15 PM
A person was made to pay over $200,000 just for some fairly minor copyright violation! She downloads a few songs, so we hit her for more than she is probably worth, effectively destroying her financially?She got slammed for uploading the songs, NOT downloading the songs. The reason the statutory damages are so high is because Congress has bent over for the RIAA, the MPAA, and Disneky when crafting legislation on copyright.





Do we penalize someone this hard when they shoplift a few cds from the store? Isn't shoplifting a few cds from the store actually a much worse crime, since someone is actually being directly harmed by it?That is a very good point. Shoplifting is stealing, downloading/uploading music is copyright infringement. The two are NOT one in the same.

Matt Collins
10-20-2007, 06:16 PM
In court, the RIAA could not prove that the woman had distributed the files to anyone. If you do the math, she would have had to share each and every song more than 13,000 times for the damage to even approach those values.It's not a hard proof since it's a civil case, it's a "preponderance of the evidence" which is a much lower threshold than "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.

And again, they didn't go for actual damages, they went after statutory damages.

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 06:37 PM
How are they going to make money when the likes of you are flooding the market with copies that they never see a penny from, huh?

Explain that to me, since I'm obviously not connecting. :rolleyes:

Oh, I dunno, the MILLIONS they rake in from concerts? Selling T-shirts and other swag? And probably 100 ideas we haven't even thought up yet? Let the market decide!

Oh, and don't lump me in there...there are VERY few downloads I've ever made. I buy 99% of my music.

And why be so afraid of downloads? I can go buy a CD and make 1,000 copies of it by midnight if I so choose. Why all of the harping solely about downloads when CD's are in no way protected?

DrNoZone
10-20-2007, 06:44 PM
If I were an artist publishing my music, here's what I'd do: I would give away ALL of my music and then set up a paypal account so that those who liked it can pitch in whatever they thought it was worth. Just think, instead of the $.50 I would make from every iTunes album sale, I could actually be pulling in $5 an album (or more) and i don't have to give a DIME to anyone else.

And then I'd brainstorm my head off trying to figure out other ways to get people to part with their money to support my artistic endeavor. Tours, shirts, private label beer,whatever.