26 ms·

Giving the RIAA the Middle Finger

18 points by earbitscom 15y ago

dlikhten 15y ago
HA! Most people don't think about the fact that buying McDonalds' food costs money, and so does download an episode of something legally. To them though, food has value, the episode is digital and thus free. Its a weird outlook on things.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  It's an understandable issue of perception because so many content owners are willing to give things away. And, many people don't even know what's legal and what's not. The problem is the attitude of entitlement that people have who clearly know the difference.
aklein 15y ago
"...enjoy enough to steal". Piracy != Theft. Say what you will about the economics or morals of piracy, but don't say it's theft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
- earbitscom 15y ago
  You can argue semantics all you want. To rely on the definition of theft as an argument while saying it should instead be called something that is described as an act of war that usually involves robbery seems like a pretty weak defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
  - aklein 15y ago
    I suppose I agree with you: piracy is an equally poor description of digital copyright infringement. Note I am not defending copyright infringement. Still, theft it is not.
WalterSear 15y ago
The commenters are morons who do not get it. Sadly, so is the article author. No insights or deep thinking that you couldn't have gotten from a 4/chan thread, with better pictures.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  We have plenty of more insightful posts about this topic on our blog. This was a rant. I don't need to recap everything we've already said every time we want to make a point. It's not CNN coverage of the election.
  - WalterSear 15y ago
    You are mistaking a tantrum for a rant. Your post told me about your position on this subject, and showed how little you understand it.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      Ah yes, my 500 words imparted to you a full understanding of all my knowledge of the music industry - you insightful sage you.
      - WalterSear 15y ago
        You insightful sage, you.
bediger 15y ago
Note the author's confusion of "millions of artists" and RIAA. You're not giving the middle-finger to the RIAA, you're giving it to the artits. Ha ha ha.
pyre 15y ago
> particularly the older ones whose only sources > of income are album sales and licensing I don't particularly have sympathy for people that feel that should profit for the rest of their lives off of their music. Either: 1) manage your money wisely when you're making buckets of it (instead of ending up broke when the gravy train stops) or 2) get a job when you stop making music. I seriously doubt that anyone but big name artists are making any significant amount of money from royalties on catalog albums.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  It takes more than the few hours you're in the studio to hone the craft and create that art - why shouldn't you be compensated for as long as it's a product people want? Nobody needs your sympathy. They need you to either buy the product, or refrain from using it. It's a very simple arrangement.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > why shouldn't you be compensated for as long as > it's a product people want Even 70 years after the author is dead and gone? I'm not advocating copyright abolishment, but I sure as hell think that something as short as 15 - 20 years (from creation) would be reasonable for copyright. Saying that someone is entitled to still get money into their estate for years and years after they are dead and gone is ridiculous.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      I would be fine with a lifetime copyright, or 20 years, whatever is longer. If you're still alive, you ought to have rights. If you die 2 years after creating something, your family ought to get something for your "property". Obviously, though, very little of what we're talking about in this discussion is 70 years old. Led Zeppelin doesn't tour anymore. They should still be making money from their copyrighted material.
      - pyre 15y ago
equalarrow 15y ago
I think the author ignores the elephant in the room: RIAA being part of the labels share > the artists share - ever! So torrenting a track/disc/anthology monetarily hurts the labels more. However, it hurts the artists disproportionately more, but this is because artists get a paltry amount anyway. So they get less or none of their $.35, but labels get none of their $15. My hope for all this is that artists will just empower themselves and use the newer channels of distribution the internet offers. I can't in the least bit, after all their congressional lobbying to restrict the public rights and expand their corrupt initiatives, feel bad - ever - for the RIAA or labels. Everyone knows their fat, lumbering, dinosaurs..
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Nobody is saying you need to be chums with the RIAA. What I'm saying is pirating music because you think the RIAA deserves what they get is like punishing a corrupt business leader by locking the doors and burning the building with the employees stuck inside.

18 points by earbitscom 15y ago

HA! Most people don't think about the fact that buying McDonalds' food costs money, and so does download an episode of something legally. To them though, food has value, the episode is digital and thus free. Its a weird outlook on things.

earbitscom 15y ago
It's an understandable issue of perception because so many content owners are willing to give things away. And, many people don't even know what's legal and what's not. The problem is the attitude of entitlement that people have who clearly know the difference.

aklein 15y ago

"...enjoy enough to steal". Piracy != Theft. Say what you will about the economics or morals of piracy, but don't say it's theft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

earbitscom 15y ago
You can argue semantics all you want. To rely on the definition of theft as an argument while saying it should instead be called something that is described as an act of war that usually involves robbery seems like a pretty weak defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
- aklein 15y ago
  I suppose I agree with you: piracy is an equally poor description of digital copyright infringement. Note I am not defending copyright infringement. Still, theft it is not.

WalterSear 15y ago

The commenters are morons who do not get it. Sadly, so is the article author. No insights or deep thinking that you couldn't have gotten from a 4/chan thread, with better pictures.

earbitscom 15y ago
We have plenty of more insightful posts about this topic on our blog. This was a rant. I don't need to recap everything we've already said every time we want to make a point. It's not CNN coverage of the election.
- WalterSear 15y ago
  You are mistaking a tantrum for a rant. Your post told me about your position on this subject, and showed how little you understand it.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Ah yes, my 500 words imparted to you a full understanding of all my knowledge of the music industry - you insightful sage you.
    - WalterSear 15y ago
      You insightful sage, you.

bediger 15y ago

Note the author's confusion of "millions of artists" and RIAA. You're not giving the middle-finger to the RIAA, you're giving it to the artits. Ha ha ha.

pyre 15y ago

> particularly the older ones whose only sources > of income are album sales and licensing I don't particularly have sympathy for people that feel that should profit for the rest of their lives off of their music. Either: 1) manage your money wisely when you're making buckets of it (instead of ending up broke when the gravy train stops) or 2) get a job when you stop making music. I seriously doubt that anyone but big name artists are making any significant amount of money from royalties on catalog albums.

earbitscom 15y ago
It takes more than the few hours you're in the studio to hone the craft and create that art - why shouldn't you be compensated for as long as it's a product people want? Nobody needs your sympathy. They need you to either buy the product, or refrain from using it. It's a very simple arrangement.
- pyre 15y ago
  > why shouldn't you be compensated for as long as > it's a product people want Even 70 years after the author is dead and gone? I'm not advocating copyright abolishment, but I sure as hell think that something as short as 15 - 20 years (from creation) would be reasonable for copyright. Saying that someone is entitled to still get money into their estate for years and years after they are dead and gone is ridiculous.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I would be fine with a lifetime copyright, or 20 years, whatever is longer. If you're still alive, you ought to have rights. If you die 2 years after creating something, your family ought to get something for your "property". Obviously, though, very little of what we're talking about in this discussion is 70 years old. Led Zeppelin doesn't tour anymore. They should still be making money from their copyrighted material.
    - pyre 15y ago

equalarrow 15y ago

I think the author ignores the elephant in the room: RIAA being part of the labels share > the artists share - ever! So torrenting a track/disc/anthology monetarily hurts the labels more. However, it hurts the artists disproportionately more, but this is because artists get a paltry amount anyway. So they get less or none of their $.35, but labels get none of their $15. My hope for all this is that artists will just empower themselves and use the newer channels of distribution the internet offers. I can't in the least bit, after all their congressional lobbying to restrict the public rights and expand their corrupt initiatives, feel bad - ever - for the RIAA or labels. Everyone knows their fat, lumbering, dinosaurs..

earbitscom 15y ago
Nobody is saying you need to be chums with the RIAA. What I'm saying is pirating music because you think the RIAA deserves what they get is like punishing a corrupt business leader by locking the doors and burning the building with the employees stuck inside.