Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

[kitty]

why? it's a bias. they're in it for the profit and because who they are. Just the same as the union (hopefully) supports what is good for the union worker. Arguments against the collusive effect of unions cannot be used against a bill for requiring safety standards any more than a cartel pushing for protection of property rights. Besides, the cartel at least has what it can argue to be a negative right, rather than the play to moral sensibilities that the union has.

He's arguing against the means of how they go about their motives, not the motives themselves. :/

[I-n-j-i-n]

I'm the biggest pirate out there but I can see this coming a mile away. There's copyrights, technology is being caught up by the various companies, this happens. I don't understand why people think it's illogical. Because it's perfectly logical. It doesn't mean I have to like it though.

[Bahamut]

He's arguing against the means of how they go about their motives, not the motives themselves. :/

Bingo. I have zero problem with companies profiting. I have every problem with those who choose to infringe on consumers rights or to act as a cartel instead of adapting to the changing market and remaining competitive with newer companies.

[Airwalker]

What I don't like is that they are looking out for ripped media.

I buy my DVDs, I buy my music. What I don't like is somebody telling me that I can't store that on this device or play it on this computer.

[Strike911]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Haha. Oh man, this is rich. Because you know, data transfers the best on highways. Hahaha. I guess they didn't get the memo on that whole intertrons thing.

The internet is, after all, a series of tubes. It's not a truck. Maybe their treaty needs some RIAA Draino.

[Dyne]

wikipedia wrote

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

such as the other things the RIAA does

And now you sound like bluefox. Get off your high horse, you damn dreg.

Bingo. I have zero problem with companies profiting. I have every problem with those who choose to infringe on consumers rights or to act as a cartel instead of adapting to the changing market and remaining competitive with newer companies.

I agree with this statement. It's the point I was trying to make, but couldn't quite articulate a well a Bahamut here.

[Dyne]

I strongly disagree. I'm not endorsing this, but random searches at the border are pretty common practice. Have you ever left the country, had your bags searched, and got felt up? You can make a constitutional argument, but it's both hardly clear cut and contradicts what we find acceptable elsewhere.

When you get down to it, it's not really very extreme, in contrast to the patriot act in security issues and due diligence in civil cases. let's be real here; no one would be pissed off about this if it weren't for the fact that every single person posting in this thread has illegal music on his computer. It's not a civil rights issue. I find it more analogous to a bunch of drug dealers pissed off that they use dogs to find cocaine at airports. I don't believe drugs should be illegal so don't be offended by that.

If you want to make anti-intellectual property arguments, fine, but given that record companies obviously believe in the integrity of intellectual property, can you really blame them for pressuring the government to find a way to enforce their rights?

I believe it is a civil rights case. Part of this Agreement is the ability of the government to force ISPs to give up confidential information to them. They can then turn around and use that information and selectively target those they find to have accessed so-deemed "illegal files". But where does it stop after that?

So they do this, and they come to your home, no warrant, just probable cause. The Fourth Amendment says that they have to have both a warrant and probable cause before they can search your home and seize property. In this case, they'd have only one piece of the puzzle. That would make it unconstitutional.

Also, it's not a life or death situation. Unlike what the article said, which I will quote here for clarity:

Counterfeiting and piracy threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth, striking at the reputation of U.S. brands and stealing the products of U.S. creativity and innovation. Industry loss estimates run into hundreds of billions of dollars. It poses a similar threat to U.S. trading partners around the world. Developing countries are among the biggest victims, as counterfeiters passing off shoddy and unsafe goods undermine emerging local economies.

Honestly, "threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth"? And how are developing countries affected by this? There's so much turmoil in places like Darfur, Tibet, parts of Africa and the Middle East right now. At what point does this even factor into their economies? Some of those countries are either at unrest or at war.

I'm sorry, but I feel that some of what was said in that article was exaggerated. I can understand the underlying affect it has on the Music Industry itself. And maybe even the impact it has on artists. And whether you believe me or not, I do believe in copyright law, I do believe in the artists, I just don't believe in the Music Industry to do what's right for the people they say they support. As far as I'm concerned, the four labels involved in the RIAA are no better than the big oil companies turning record profits at the expense of the people.

Yeah, I'll admit, I have done my own share. However, I have since reconsidered on what I was doing, and now I get my music from iTunes, as lame as that's going to sound to a lot of people. And I really don't give a damn if you poke at me for it. That's the truth.

I honestly want to hear from the artists in the industry to see what their stories. I would lay odds that some of our own artists here could even share their knowledge of the "generosity" of the industry itself, and what the RIAA truly represents.

I still stand by my argument that this ATCA is going to violate rights, and is therefore unconstitutional and against the law. Do I feel that intellectual rights should be protected and respected, yes, I do. Do I feel this is the way to do it, no I don't. The way they're talking, if any one part screws it up, they could be in for stiffer trade issues. I want to know what the penalties are for failure to comply with this agreement. In the long run, all of these countries, specifically their people, could suffer. Not just in rights, but also financially. How so financially I'll let you figure out.

[Hector]

Copyright infringement aside, I wouldn't want them seeing what's on my computer. It's a private place full of personal stuff. Most people have things on their computer that they wouldn't want anyone else to see, even if it's just some crappy experiments with poetry (don't look at my writing like you're looking at me oddly). My concern is how this "law" would protect that property. And, I think our "congressmen" will be very concerned about that. They wouldn't want anything of theirs to be looked through either. And I've a feeling that other members of the G8 face similar problems. They already cry about library records being looked into (and it's not like the library keeps that many dangerous or shameful books).

[SynthesizedStampede]

Makes sense to me, but I don't entirely like it, considering it's sometimes the only way to find some rare beats. Anyone who's a bboy or breaks knows that it's uberly hard to find any bboy songs legally, considering they're so rare and hard to find >_<. Guess it's a good idea to tell our friends and our friends' friends to start burning them cds right?

[PassivePretentiousness]

I believe it is a civil rights case. Part of this Agreement is the ability of the government to force ISPs to give up confidential information to them. They can then turn around and use that information and selectively target those they find to have accessed so-deemed "illegal files". But where does it stop after that?

So they do this, and they come to your home, no warrant, just probable cause. The Fourth Amendment says that they have to have both a warrant and probable cause before they can search your home and seize property. In this case, they'd have only one piece of the puzzle. That would make it unconstitutional.

ok so you stopped caring about the airport thing even though it was your original argument.

I'm not to tell you it's constitutional, because it's not, but I'm still wandering why this is so crazy and bad and ridiculous in comparison to the standards people face off the interwebs. Going nuts over this while the Patriot Act is in place is like worrying about a a firecracker when an atom bomb is going off a mile away.

I never said I thought this was constitutional.

Honestly, "threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth"? And how are developing countries affected by this? There's so much turmoil in places like Darfur, Tibet, parts of Africa and the Middle East right now. At what point does this even factor into their economies? Some of those countries are either at unrest or at war.

I don't know, because a large portion of America's strengths economically are the entertainment industry? We collectively get to buy more overseas manufactured goods without significant cost to us if first and second world countries don't allow their citizens access to music or movies unless they pay for them. In my opinion we wouldn't get too much job loss from this (although there would be a very marginal wealth), but it effects the wealth of any working or associated with the software, music, or film in a very real way. It also causes us to underallocate resources to the production of those three since the inability to secure as much income as they "should" by virtue of their ownership of intellectual property rights. That is to say, certain products in this segment of the economy simply are not produced because in our current situation it is not possible to make profit off of them. This does ultimately effect everyone in the economy- for example, the moderately talented guy flipping burgers might get signed if things change, and to attract a replacement, they may have to marginally increase wages. This won't happen everywhere, but the effect is spread over the entire economy.

I don't really know how tibet and third world countries fit into all of this. They aren't even economies that are subject to this treaty. Are you calling the lawmakers evil for wanting to improve our economy even though it will have no effect on people entirely out of our international sphere who are royally screwed? There's an economic notion of profit-seeking versus rent-seeking. Profit-seeking behavior is one that increases the size of the total "pie" in order to increase one's own wealth by expanding the economy (by, for example, setting up better institutions that allow the owners of property to reap the full benefits of the property. It increases the total size and wealth of the economy in the manner I wrote out above). Rent-seeking behavior does nothing to change the size of the economy, and instead focuses on taking a bigger slice of the same pie. An example is a firm attempting to be granted monopoly privileges or other unnatural market power through the government. While the primary beneficiaries are the RIAA, that doesn't make them wrong for attempting to protect their property, any more than a group of farmers who form an organization petitioning the local government to help assist them keeping cow-tippers off their land.

What I understand to a certain extent is that what the RIAA very much looks like is rent-seeking behavior. It is statist, corporate, and powerful, and such an organization lobbying the government for aid against a decentralized, nebulous opposition. Ironically, the public is often at worse ambivalent to such actions, such as general populist support of such rent-seeking actions as tariffs and quotas, but the two are not equivalent. It's not trying to limit competition (and if you want to go on about how the RIAA screws competition by screwing independent artists, I would love to have that conversation in PPR because I have a few things to say about that), but to get the profit it deserves, and if we're speaking economically, **objectively** deserves by its property ownership. The means are at best questionable, but it is ultimately looking for equal protection under the law to owners of physical property, not to hurt people.

I'm sorry, but I feel that some of what was said in that article was exaggerated. I can understand the underlying affect it has on the Music Industry itself. And maybe even the impact it has on artists. And whether you believe me or not, I do believe in copyright law, I do believe in the artists, I just don't believe in the Music Industry to do what's right for the people they say they support. As far as I'm concerned, the four labels involved in the RIAA are no better than the big oil companies turning record profits at the expense of the people.

It's not the artists' property anymore. It's not their prerogative to support them because they paid to do whatever they want to maximize their own profit with the music. That isn't screwing anyone. It's the invisible hand.

It's also getting pretty annoying to hear people go on about how wrong it is for oil companies to earn record profits (part of which is explained by inflation) when the price of ONE of its inputs as a business is rising. That's excellent strategy, not manipulation. For further ranting see:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_XMzh2rg_s

while keeping in mind that this is a year old. I'll go on in a separate thread in PPR.

Yeah, I'll admit, I have done my own share. However, I have since reconsidered on what I was doing, and now I get my music from iTunes, as lame as that's going to sound to a lot of people. And I really don't give a damn if you poke at me for it. That's the truth.

I honestly want to hear from the artists in the industry to see what their stories. I would lay odds that some of our own artists here could even share their knowledge of the "generosity" of the industry itself, and what the RIAA truly represents.

I still stand by my argument that this ATCA is going to violate rights, and is therefore unconstitutional and against the law. Do I feel that intellectual rights should be protected and respected, yes, I do. Do I feel this is the way to do it, no I don't. The way they're talking, if any one part screws it up, they could be in for stiffer trade issues. I want to know what the penalties are for failure to comply with this agreement. In the long run, all of these countries, specifically their people, could suffer. Not just in rights, but also financially. How so financially I'll let you figure out.

Industry execs make a lot more than you. If they raise their salary by 33% and make themselves another $750,000, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lower class person raising his salary by 33% and getting another $8,000. But can you really blame the executive for getting pissed at the government that it can't find a solution to something that, given intellectual property, is irrevocably and incontrovertibly their own? This is their money. It shouldn't take that much to keep people from stealing from them. If you have to demand access to vague records of honest people's actions while rarely, if ever, prosecuting or even questioning them, so be it. They are being harmed irreducibly and extravagantly. We would be collectively hurt slightly if at all. Civil rights aren't even a natural (according to locke or whomever) right, just something we have because the government grants us it because we think that things will work best if we have them. In comparison, intellectual property is a negative, natural right, that theoretically should supersede civil rights. I don't think it should, and obviously you don't either, but the RIAA isn't evil for suggesting that it does.

[AMT]

So I'm still confused as to how they can tell the difference between me buying a new CD and transferring it to my computer to put on my iPod and in Winamp and me downloading a rip of said CD. Two rips of the same CD in the same program at the same bitrate are going to be identical.

[blue.nocturne]

Industry execs make a lot more than you. If they raise their salary by 33% and make themselves another $750,000, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lower class person raising his salary by 33% and getting another $8,000.

I disagree with this entirely. The richer you are, the less money matters to you honestly. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, so an $8,000 increase is a HUGE increase relative to a extra few hundred thousand dollars for the executive. An average American makes around $50k, so an 33% increase would entail more than 8,000, and after taxes that 50k will equate to $30-35k. After mortgages, utilities, food, gas, they are left with nothing. Probably not enough money to even save a dime, but with an extra 8,000, people can set up a college fund, not rely on credit cards (less debt, which = more money in the end), thus the 8,000 actually becomes extremely valuable to them. Debt traps the poor in the lower brackets, while debt feeds the rich, and most middle and lower class people are forced to have debt as a means of survival. Most people who are poor remain poor because of the way taxes are bracketed, while the rich has all this extra money they can invest and permanently stay rich if they are careful with their money.

So if anything, I think the executives make enough already. Most companies are faring quite well despite all this pirating, especially the music and movie industry. They are the two most pirated industries in my opinion and they are both extremely successful. Honestly if they have huge profits already, we really don't need these heavy liberty infringing laws. If they truly are suffering, then this law would be more excusable, but if this is at the expense so that executives could eat more caviar and truffles.. then it's unnecessary.

If this law passes, even if you don't pirate, it will be extremely annoying. Imagine going to the airport and you bring your Ipod so you're not bored the entire flight, and you happen to be the target of a random search. They perhaps will need to confiscate your Ipod to scan it and I doubt this can be done instantly, so it will be given back to you much later on. It generates a factor of public nuisance and is an invasion of privacy, since because of this law, you will be bored to death the entire flight.

People like to show other people new music too. If you like an artist, you probably will burn them a copy of some songs and if your friend really likes them, they most likely will buy more of this artist's music later on. If this law is passed, that would be illegal, and your friend will never know or grow an appreciation for that artist. So technically, this law has the possibility of reducing the income of some major industries, because pirating actually has become sort of a trial version for music, software, etc. Some industries are actually against this proposition for that exact reason.

Also, the Patriot Act was mentioned earlier. I believe it would have never passed if it was not for 9/11. The only reason why this huge right infringing, discriminating law sneaked through the checks and balances system is only because of paranoia. On normal grounds, it would never have passed because it violates the basic amendments, such as the right to liberty and privacy.

Piracy does not seem to be that huge of a problem in the US, and I don't think this can generate grounds for blatant disregard of basic rights laid out by the amendment. Piracy is a lot worse in other countries, such as China. They literally sell burned copies of movies and music that they have no license to sell. The producers of those movies and music gain no revenue from those sales. That is extremely harmful and should be stopped, but in America you would be arrested the second that is done.

So case in point, this should not be allowed to pass in America because it would be like using a fire hose to put out a candle's flame. In some countries it would be appropriate, but not in the USA.

[SnappleMan]

Oh my God! This will damage bootlegging almost as much as copy protected audio CDs and the FBI splash screens at the beginning of my Death Note DVDs! We're doomed! ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

[Mustin]

I for one, don't have any illegal music on my computer...

If you have OCReMixes, those are mostly illegal. Pretty much no one on this site has permission to do arrangements of these themes, let alone release them - probably not even The Fat Man and his 7th Guest mix for which he wrote the original music (which is most likely owned by Virgin Interactive Entertainment).

So given that right there, I wouldn't be too worried about. I don't see this site being shut down anytime soon. And there's really no way to tell what's pirated if you can't see their CD/DVD collection back home.

I'm not too worried about it. Just be sure to not steal so much stuff that you get flagged! Moderation, people!

[PassivePretentiousness]

I disagree with this entirely. The richer you are, the less money matters to you honestly. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, so an $8,000 increase is a HUGE increase relative to a extra few hundred thousand dollars for the executive. An average American makes around $50k, so an 33% increase would entail more than 8,000, and after taxes that 50k will equate to $30-35k. After mortgages, utilities, food, gas, they are left with nothing. Probably not enough money to even save a dime, but with an extra 8,000, people can set up a college fund, not rely on credit cards (less debt, which = more money in the end), thus the 8,000 actually becomes extremely valuable to them. Debt traps the poor in the lower brackets, while debt feeds the rich, and most middle and lower class people are forced to have debt as a means of survival. Most people who are poor remain poor because of the way taxes are bracketed, while the rich has all this extra money they can invest and permanently stay rich if they are careful with their money.

So if anything, I think the executives make enough already. Most companies are faring quite well despite all this pirating, especially the music and movie industry. They are the two most pirated industries in my opinion and they are both extremely successful. Honestly if they have huge profits already, we really don't need these heavy liberty infringing laws. If they truly are suffering, then this law would be more excusable, but if this is at the expense so that executives could eat more caviar and truffles.. then it's unnecessary.

that was actually a typo and I agree with you.

If this law passes, even if you don't pirate, it will be extremely annoying. Imagine going to the airport and you bring your Ipod so you're not bored the entire flight, and you happen to be the target of a random search. They perhaps will need to confiscate your Ipod to scan it and I doubt this can be done instantly, so it will be given back to you much later on. It generates a factor of public nuisance and is an invasion of privacy, since because of this law, you will be bored to death the entire flight.

I know. I said I think it is an unconstitutional

People like to show other people new music too. If you like an artist, you probably will burn them a copy of some songs and if your friend really likes them, they most likely will buy more of this artist's music later on. If this law is passed, that would be illegal, and your friend will never know or grow an appreciation for that artist. So technically, this law has the possibility of reducing the income of some major industries, because pirating actually has become sort of a trial version for music, software, etc. Some industries are actually against this proposition for that exact reason.

It's already illegal, or at least arguably illegal depending on your stretch of fair use. If industries or a company wants people to sometimes be able to share, there are still other options, such as a license that allows a certain amount of sharing. The point is now that such a sharing arrangement is forced about all firms in all industries dealing in intellectual property.

Also, the Patriot Act was mentioned earlier. I believe it would have never passed if it was not for 9/11. The only reason why this huge right infringing, discriminating law sneaked through the checks and balances system is only because of paranoia. On normal grounds, it would never have passed because it violates the basic amendments, such as the right to liberty and privacy.

Obviously it would have never passed if not for 9/11. It doesn't matter; the types of detainments made possible by it are so so so beyond the scope and power of this act that make it crazy to get riled up by an attempt to enforce intellectual property rights when all other areas of government involvement in today's world are somehow otherwise acceptable. It's not even clearcut that it's unconstitutional to search people as they enter the border. How many people consider it some gross misappropriation of coercive power to check luggage for anything dangerous, things you need to duty on, or controlled substances (such as meat from Europe)? Not very many. If you carried something in your luggage that could "hurt", as defined above, the value of someone's legitimately owned property, most people are ok with it being checked and confiscated if found. That's exactly what illegal music does.

Piracy does not seem to be that huge of a problem in the US, and I don't think this can generate grounds for blatant disregard of basic rights laid out by the amendment. Piracy is a lot worse in other countries, such as China. They literally sell burned copies of movies and music that they have no license to sell. The producers of those movies and music gain no revenue from those sales. That is extremely harmful and should be stopped, but in America you would be arrested the second that is done.

"does not seem to be that huge of a problem in the US", huh? At commercial value (of which obviously not all you would not have necessarily bought), what is the total value of all the stuff on your computer? At $1 a song, $12 a movie, and $300 each for those fancy expensive music/image editing software you cracked? If not you, college students? China is worse, yes, but one thing different is that we have control over what we're doing over there. And while you may feel much more indignation and scorn towards someone who makes money off of the work of others, to the producer the effect is identical, especially at the pennies on the dollar cost of DVD sales in most third and second world countries. Mentioned in the article would be an attempt to get second world countries, such as China, to buy into a modicum of enforcement as well.

[Dyne]

ok so you stopped caring about the airport thing even though it was your original argument.

I'm not to tell you it's constitutional, because it's not, but I'm still wandering why this is so crazy and bad and ridiculous in comparison to the standards people face off the interwebs. Going nuts over this while the Patriot Act is in place is like worrying about a a firecracker when an atom bomb is going off a mile away.

I never said I thought this was constitutional.

I never stopped caring about the airport searches and seizures thing, I just chose to move on from that to another topic within the main topic. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, yeah, I'm not happy about it. I think the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of both civil rights and the Constitution. But what else is there to say about it? We all know it's the truth. So that's why I'm not going on and on about it.

I don't know, because a large portion of America's strengths economically are the entertainment industry? We collectively get to buy more overseas manufactured goods without significant cost to us if first and second world countries don't allow their citizens access to music or movies unless they pay for them. In my opinion we wouldn't get too much job loss from this (although there would be a very marginal wealth), but it effects the wealth of any working or associated with the software, music, or film in a very real way. It also causes us to underallocate resources to the production of those three since the inability to secure as much income as they "should" by virtue of their ownership of intellectual property rights. That is to say, certain products in this segment of the economy simply are not produced because in our current situation it is not possible to make profit off of them. This does ultimately effect everyone in the economy- for example, the moderately talented guy flipping burgers might get signed if things change, and to attract a replacement, they may have to marginally increase wages. This won't happen everywhere, but the effect is spread over the entire economy.

Actually, I sincerely doubt that entertainment is the largest, and if it is, it is because of the way things are priced. Look at movie theaters for example. Even before piracy is a huge hot button topic, prices started to rise. Whether that was because of inflation or because studios continuously increased their budgets, I don't know (though honestly, that doesn't excuse concession stands from being exorbitantly priced). I do agree that piracy does affect the workers, producers, and manufacturers of products no matter what they make, however, I sincerely doubt it affects the bottom line of the executives, because they get paid no matter what happens (which we seem to agree on), and I think that that right there has the biggest effect on jobs in that industry.

I don't honestly know where you're going with the "under-allocation" you're talking about, maybe you could explain that further.

Movies and software aside, music is a true intellectual property, and should be owned by the artists themselves (though I realize that it often times is not). And it should not be by virtue, it should be cold hard fact. I'm pretty sure most artists write their own lyrics and music themselves, though there are some who don't, and just sing or play what they're given. Still, the fact remains that the artist should have control over how their property is used.

I don't really know how tibet and third world countries fit into all of this. They aren't even economies that are subject to this treaty. Are you calling the lawmakers evil for wanting to improve our economy even though it will have no effect on people entirely out of our international sphere who are royally screwed? There's an economic notion of profit-seeking versus rent-seeking. Profit-seeking behavior is one that increases the size of the total "pie" in order to increase one's own wealth by expanding the economy (by, for example, setting up better institutions that allow the owners of property to reap the full benefits of the property. It increases the total size and wealth of the economy in the manner I wrote out above). Rent-seeking behavior does nothing to change the size of the economy, and instead focuses on taking a bigger slice of the same pie. An example is a firm attempting to be granted monopoly privileges or other unnatural market power through the government. While the primary beneficiaries are the RIAA, that doesn't make them wrong for attempting to protect their property, any more than a group of farmers who form an organization petitioning the local government to help assist them keeping cow-tippers off their land.

Firstly, places like Tibet and Darfur aren't worried about piracy so much as loss of life because of rioting, protests and violence in those countries. There's really no way you can argue that point with me unless you can tell me how it directly affects their economies.

I'm also not calling lawmakers evil for wanting to help stop piracy, but instead of making trade agreements which they may not even be able to make good on, they should try enforcing laws they recently passed instead of levying new ones against people, especially ones that infringe on their privacy, as well as their dignity. Also, with that statement, I'd like to add that they really need to think about how they're going to determine what's pirated and what's not. Certainly pirated software will have its own markers, but what about music? Movies may even be easily detected as pirated, but again, what about music? Let's say I rip a CD to MP3 format. It's stored on my hard drive for personal use. Let's say I get searched, they find it, and call it illegal. Is it really illegal? Or is it personal use? How do they determine that?

Also, we're not here to talk about rent-seeking or profit-seeking. We weren't talking about the exchange of money to begin with. We were talking about methods and tasks being taken to stem piracy through law that seems to be set up outside of international law itself. A trade agreement immune from international law is dangerous, and if you really want to see what that's like, let them pass something like this, or even better still, something that directly violates peoples' rights, and then complain to me about it. Let's try to stay on topic here.

As far as the RIAA is concerned, they do not have a squeaky clean record as you may think. And also, they are, as far as I know, a not-for-profit organization that is funded directly by the four biggest record labels in the country (most likely the world). Also, as far as I know, the RIAA does not own any copyrights to intellectual property, they're just the "lynch mob" so-to-speak that's out there to stop piracy through what seems to be any means necessary, even if it violates a person's rights.

Oh yeah, and unlike farmers petitioning a government for something, the farmers won't hack your computer.

What I understand to a certain extent is that what the RIAA very much looks like is rent-seeking behavior. It is statist, corporate, and powerful, and such an organization lobbying the government for aid against a decentralized, nebulous opposition. Ironically, the public is often at worse ambivalent to such actions, such as general populist support of such rent-seeking actions as tariffs and quotas, but the two are not equivalent. It's not trying to limit competition (and if you want to go on about how the RIAA screws competition by screwing independent artists, I would love to have that conversation in PPR because I have a few things to say about that), but to get the profit it deserves, and if we're speaking economically, **objectively** deserves by its property ownership. The means are at best questionable, but it is ultimately looking for equal protection under the law to owners of physical property, not to hurt people.

Again, to restate what I said above, they do not hold any copyrights. If they did, they'd have the right to file lawsuits left and right. They are merely the arm of the industry that seeks out the violators, and then prosecutes them on behalf of the industry.

It's not the artists' property anymore. It's not their prerogative to support them because they paid to do whatever they want to maximize their own profit with the music. That isn't screwing anyone. It's the invisible hand.

The hell is isn't. You're way off center here. The labels exist to market, license, distribute, record and protect the music for the artist. But the artist, if he/she doesn't already, should own the rights to their music. Who the fuck are the labels to tell them what their property is, and what they deserve to get paid? Yes, the labels do a lot of work, but why shouldn't the artist get paid for what they've done? Why don't you go be an artist for a while, and see what kind of screwing you take?

It's also getting pretty annoying to hear people go on about how wrong it is for oil companies to earn record profits (part of which is explained by inflation) when the price of ONE of its inputs as a business is rising. That's excellent strategy, not manipulation. For further ranting see:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_XMzh2rg_s

while keeping in mind that this is a year old. I'll go on in a separate thread in PPR.

Yes, please keep the oil industry argument out of this thread, not that I'm attempting to moderate that, but the fact does remain that the oil industry, SPECIFICALLY OPEC, controls the price by controlling the production which is part of supply and demand. Do not stand here and dictate to me or anyone else how their strategy is one of benevolence and that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing. You can also thank the US government for making it illegal to lease the areas on the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and certain parts of the western US for the drilling of oil and natural gas. Nice work, reserves aplenty, but we can't touch them. (You can also blame inflation, but that is an argument I don't even want to begin to fathom getting into.)(

Industry execs make a lot more than you. If they raise their salary by 33% and make themselves another $750,000, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lower class person raising his salary by 33% and getting another $8,000. But can you really blame the executive for getting pissed at the government that it can't find a solution to something that, given intellectual property, is irrevocably and incontrovertibly their own? This is their money. It shouldn't take that much to keep people from stealing from them. If you have to demand access to vague records of honest people's actions while rarely, if ever, prosecuting or even questioning them, so be it. They are being harmed irreducibly and extravagantly. We would be collectively hurt slightly if at all. Civil rights aren't even a natural (according to locke or whomever) right, just something we have because the government grants us it because we think that things will work best if we have them. In comparison, intellectual property is a negative, natural right, that theoretically should supersede civil rights. I don't think it should, and obviously you don't either, but the RIAA isn't evil for suggesting that it does.

So what the hell does that have to do with anything? Why should the executives make millions of dollars a year on the backs of the artists who work hard at their craft? Shouldn't it be the artists who get paid millions? Oh yeah, that's right, you're going to tell me all the fringe benefits the artists get, right? Not all of them get their own jets, or have their own entourage to follow them around. Yeah, they get SOME help, but I seriously doubt the industry pays for it all. If they did, wouldn't that cut further into the executives paycheck?

[Dyne]

It has occurred to me that I have really not explain truly what it is that is frustrating me. Now I understand that we've been over this topic a lot, and that it may seem like I have no problem with piracy, when in fact, I do. It's not the issue that bothers me, it's the methods being taken to to stop piracy, methods that, like the police's use of entrapment, seem illegal.

So really, what bothers me is how they're going about this, not the reason why. I guess maybe that's what you wanted me to say, or at least needed me to say. I reiterate, it's not the why, it's the how, and the how violates rights. Not the so-called "right" to pirate product, the right, rather, rights, to be secure in your person, property and effects. Being searched isn't anything new. They do random searches, I know all about that, I understand that. But being able to take away what's your's, and even to destroy it, isn't that theft? And destruction of property as well? Even if it's for a lawful purpose, that doesn't make it right.

Sooner or later you're going to have a lot of people angry that even though they actually do have legal media stored on their laptop, computer or mp3 player, they're still having their property confiscated and destroyed instead of the realistic approach of just formatting any drive with music stored on it. Yes, it's aggravating, but what else is there?

Something else to consider with search and seizure. Are they going to search a business executive's laptop for illegal downloads? That's probably when pigs will fly. They may say it's random, but it can degenerate into both profiling, and bias in terms of what kind of "person" you are. It may sound racist or sexist, but think about the current climate in the country too, even around the world. That should give you an idea of what this will be like for people, innocent or not.

[PassivePretentiousness]

I never stopped caring about the airport searches and seizures thing, I just chose to move on from that to another topic within the main topic. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, yeah, I'm not happy about it. I think the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of both civil rights and the Constitution. But what else is there to say about it? We all know it's the truth. So that's why I'm not going on and on about it.

Actually, I sincerely doubt that entertainment is the largest, and if it is, it is because of the way things are priced. Look at movie theaters for example. Even before piracy is a huge hot button topic, prices started to rise. Whether that was because of inflation or because studios continuously increased their budgets, I don't know (though honestly, that doesn't excuse concession stands from being exorbitantly priced). I do agree that piracy does affect the workers, producers, and manufacturers of products no matter what they make, however, I sincerely doubt it affects the bottom line of the executives, because they get paid no matter what happens (which we seem to agree on), and I think that that right there has the biggest effect on jobs in that industry.

I don't honestly know where you're going with the "under-allocation" you're talking about, maybe you could explain that further.

Movies and software aside, music is a true intellectual property, and should be owned by the artists themselves (though I realize that it often times is not). And it should not be by virtue, it should be cold hard fact. I'm pretty sure most artists write their own lyrics and music themselves, though there are some who don't, and just sing or play what they're given. Still, the fact remains that the artist should have control over how their property is used.

Firstly, places like Tibet and Darfur aren't worried about piracy so much as loss of life because of rioting, protests and violence in those countries. There's really no way you can argue that point with me unless you can tell me how it directly affects their economies.

I'm also not calling lawmakers evil for wanting to help stop piracy, but instead of making trade agreements which they may not even be able to make good on, they should try enforcing laws they recently passed instead of levying new ones against people, especially ones that infringe on their privacy, as well as their dignity. Also, with that statement, I'd like to add that they really need to think about how they're going to determine what's pirated and what's not. Certainly pirated software will have its own markers, but what about music? Movies may even be easily detected as pirated, but again, what about music? Let's say I rip a CD to MP3 format. It's stored on my hard drive for personal use. Let's say I get searched, they find it, and call it illegal. Is it really illegal? Or is it personal use? How do they determine that?

Also, we're not here to talk about rent-seeking or profit-seeking. We weren't talking about the exchange of money to begin with. We were talking about methods and tasks being taken to stem piracy through law that seems to be set up outside of international law itself. A trade agreement immune from international law is dangerous, and if you really want to see what that's like, let them pass something like this, or even better still, something that directly violates peoples' rights, and then complain to me about it. Let's try to stay on topic here.

As far as the RIAA is concerned, they do not have a squeaky clean record as you may think. And also, they are, as far as I know, a not-for-profit organization that is funded directly by the four biggest record labels in the country (most likely the world). Also, as far as I know, the RIAA does not own any copyrights to intellectual property, they're just the "lynch mob" so-to-speak that's out there to stop piracy through what seems to be any means necessary, even if it violates a person's rights.

Oh yeah, and unlike farmers petitioning a government for something, the farmers won't hack your computer.

Again, to restate what I said above, they do not hold any copyrights. If they did, they'd have the right to file lawsuits left and right. They are merely the arm of the industry that seeks out the violators, and then prosecutes them on behalf of the industry.

The hell is isn't. You're way off center here. The labels exist to market, license, distribute, record and protect the music for the artist. But the artist, if he/she doesn't already, should own the rights to their music. Who the fuck are the labels to tell them what their property is, and what they deserve to get paid? Yes, the labels do a lot of work, but why shouldn't the artist get paid for what they've done? Why don't you go be an artist for a while, and see what kind of screwing you take?

Yes, please keep the oil industry argument out of this thread, not that I'm attempting to moderate that, but the fact does remain that the oil industry, SPECIFICALLY OPEC, controls the price by controlling the production which is part of supply and demand. Do not stand here and dictate to me or anyone else how their strategy is one of benevolence and that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing. You can also thank the US government for making it illegal to lease the areas on the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and certain parts of the western US for the drilling of oil and natural gas. Nice work, reserves aplenty, but we can't touch them. (You can also blame inflation, but that is an argument I don't even want to begin to fathom getting into.)(

So what the hell does that have to do with anything? Why should the executives make millions of dollars a year on the backs of the artists who work hard at their craft? Shouldn't it be the artists who get paid millions? Oh yeah, that's right, you're going to tell me all the fringe benefits the artists get, right? Not all of them get their own jets, or have their own entourage to follow them around. Yeah, they get SOME help, but I seriously doubt the industry pays for it all. If they did, wouldn't that cut further into the executives paycheck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

[Dyne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

That is the most pathetic response I've ever seen.

Instead of sitting there, linking some article, why don't you explain it in terms I'm going to understand, and then I'll ask you questions. How about that, instead of a link to an article?

In economics, an externality is an impact (positive or negative) on any party not involved in a given economic transaction. An externality occurs when a decision causes costs or benefits to third party stakeholders, often, although not necessarily, from the use of a public good. In other words, the participants in an economic transaction do not necessarily bear all of the costs or reap all of the benefits of the transaction. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on others when making use of public air. In a competitive market, this means too much or too little of the good may be produced and consumed in terms of overall cost or benefit to society, depending on incentives at the margin and strategic behavior.

Or is that what you wanted me to see? Is that it? Is that the lynch pin of your argument?

[PassivePretentiousness]

That is the most pathetic response I've ever seen.

Instead of sitting there, linking some article, why don't you explain it in terms I'm going to understand, and then I'll ask you questions. How about that, instead of a link to an article?

Why not respond to something with thought instead of emotion. there are people who study whether the money companies receive is justified. they are called economists. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand economics. However, you are much more skilled in all other areas of human study, and economics is just a bunch of people trying to make rich people feel justified anyways, so I wanted to learn more from you by allowing you to be more compassionate to the unfortunate predicament of my ignorance. Ignorance, that's all it is. I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, since in matters of where meets business, economics is irrelevant. It fails to either consider the human side of the equation or provide anything resembling a scientific, empiric view of reality due to the of applying statistical analysis. I'm sure that you nonetheless have a conversational, working knowledge of us despicable pseudo-scientists, in basic areas like marginal analysis and allocative efficiency, as clearly each notion is an incongruence wrought by economists' institutional prejudice towards truth. With your indelible interpretations against our false notions of market pressure, market power, and marginal utility, I hope that you can humble yourself to correct me beyond your glancing slight of my unpretentious link, as I am always anxious to desire to understand the arguments against basic economic theory posed by those of the academic stature such as yourself.

[Dyne]

Why not respond to something with thought instead of emotion. there are people who study whether the money companies receive is justified. they are called economists. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand economics. However, you are much more skilled in all other areas of human study, and economics is just a bunch of people trying to make rich people feel justified anyways, so I wanted to learn more from you by allowing you to be more compassionate to the unfortunate predicament of my ignorance. Ignorance, that's all it is. I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, since in matters of where meets business, economics is irrelevant. It fails to either consider the human side of the equation or provide anything resembling a scientific, empiric view of reality due to the of applying statistical analysis. I'm sure that you nonetheless have a conversational, working knowledge of us despicable pseudo-scientists, in basic areas like marginal analysis and allocative efficiency, as clearly each notion is an incongruence wrought by economists' institutional prejudice towards truth. With your indelible interpretations against our false notions of market pressure, market power, and marginal utility, I hope that you can humble yourself to correct me beyond your glancing slight of my unpretentious link, as I am always anxious to desire to understand the arguments against basic economic theory posed by those of the academic stature such as yourself.

All I really wanted was for you to explain what you meant, not link me to something and not say anything about it. Linking me to something without so much as an explanation is being a smartass. At least in my own point of view. I am however sorry if I have offended you and your perceptions.

I don't want to argue with you to the point of hate. I don't. It's not, and was never, my true intention. I admit, I do lead my argument with emotion, but unfortunately, I'm a human being with emotions and I do feel perplexed by people in society that don't even bother to consider the human component. So I was wrong to sit here and chastise you. But let's not let that stop us from actually going somewhere intelligent with the conversation, after all, that's what we're here for, an intellectual conversation.

If I don't understand something, I'll say so, and if you're so inclined, feel free to answer it. I just ask you not to response with just a link and no explanation whatsoever. A link by itself just tells me that you'd rather not take the time to explain something that you could either A) make simple, and not insult me with.

And again, I am sorry for my previous comments, the derogatory ones I've made in previous replies. I can see some of your points, and maybe can concede a few, but not all of them. I honestly do not believe that one side or the other can be 100% right on how to handle the interpretation of this kind of law, or the ramifications on the people. And when I say people at this point, I mean everyone involved from the consumer back to the top of the chain.

No matter who it affects, I realize that it will eventually directly or indirectly affect everyone. I just don't believe that you should alienate everyone for the sake of catching the few. It's like one person does something wrong, but you punish everyone. Sure, it certainly discourages the same behavior, but what have you really done? You've driven a wedge that cannot easily be removed, and possibly damaged any future relationship, business or otherwise, quite possibly irreparably.

Economics aside, how do you deal with that potentiality?

[Sinewav]

If you have OCReMixes, those are mostly illegal. Pretty much no one on this site has permission to do arrangements of these themes, let alone release them - probably not even The Fat Man and his 7th Guest mix for which he wrote the original music (which is most likely owned by Virgin Interactive Entertainment).

By all technical means... yes, you're right. However, isn't it pretty much common knowledge (at least in game music circles) that remixing is accepted and even encouraged by the industry? I can't imagine that OCReMix takes away from the profits of these companies whatsoever... in fact I imagine it does just the opposite in some cases. So although it's technically illegal (though it is somewhat of a grey area; I've heard many different interpretations of the copyright law regarding these matters), we don't have to worry about the copyright holders at all. While I suppose this part of my music collection doesn't follow the letter of the law, from what I've seen, it seems to be fairly accepted that it follows the spirit of the law.

Also, (and I realize this isn't a valid argument from a legal standpoint) we're talking about remixes here. The industry is going to go after people who have pirated original copies of original music, not liberal re-imaginings of their tunes. Have you ever heard of the RIAA suing a garage band for covering a pop song? It's along the same lines, methinks.

[OverCoat]

Have you ever heard of the RIAA suing a garage band for covering a pop song?

Yes.

If I remember right, usually they fine the venue, not the band, for not paying some license to let their shows play other peoples' copyrighted material. Weird how that one works. Hard to enforce though, I think you can get away with it in most smaller venues like bars or clubs.

[PassivePretentiousness]

All I really wanted was for you to explain what you meant, not link me to something and not say anything about it. Linking me to something without so much as an explanation is being a smartass. At least in my own point of view. I am however sorry if I have offended you and your perceptions.

I don't want to argue with you to the point of hate. I don't. It's not, and was never, my true intention. I admit, I do lead my argument with emotion, but unfortunately, I'm a human being with emotions and I do feel perplexed by people in society that don't even bother to consider the human component. So I was wrong to sit here and chastise you. But let's not let that stop us from actually going somewhere intelligent with the conversation, after all, that's what we're here for, an intellectual conversation.

If I don't understand something, I'll say so, and if you're so inclined, feel free to answer it. I just ask you not to response with just a link and no explanation whatsoever. A link by itself just tells me that you'd rather not take the time to explain something that you could either A) make simple, and not insult me with.

And again, I am sorry for my previous comments, the derogatory ones I've made in previous replies. I can see some of your points, and maybe can concede a few, but not all of them. I honestly do not believe that one side or the other can be 100% right on how to handle the interpretation of this kind of law, or the ramifications on the people. And when I say people at this point, I mean everyone involved from the consumer back to the top of the chain.

No matter who it affects, I realize that it will eventually directly or indirectly affect everyone. I just don't believe that you should alienate everyone for the sake of catching the few. It's like one person does something wrong, but you punish everyone. Sure, it certainly discourages the same behavior, but what have you really done? You've driven a wedge that cannot easily be removed, and possibly damaged any future relationship, business or otherwise, quite possibly irreparably.

Economics aside, how do you deal with that potentiality?

I don't feel like discussing the philosophical motivations of my attitudes in this thread. We can elsewhere if you want.

Regarding the notion of externality, it is not really applicable to this situation, although I can understand what you mean. I'll elaborate on the given example of pollution. When a company pollutes, it doesn't feel the true societal cost of providing its goods. Dirtier air causes people to be hit by a cost, but have no means of getting paid for it by the polluter. This causes the economy to overallocate (spend more resources on one good than it should to maximize utility). It does not really apply because the "transaction" that occurs when I give you music is not a legal and violates property rights upon which economic theory is based. It's similar to externalities inasmuch as you don't feel the costs of producing music, so the utility-maximizing "quantity" of that music file is spread over the economy. However, in this case, the damage felt is only to the record company and the spill over benefits to the US economy I already outlined, unless of course you sharing music causes more people to listen Yellowdcard or something; in which case, shame on you.

The attitude that sets me off about this is the idea that record companies already have enough money, so screw them. Enough by what standard? If you're talking from the standpoint of maximizing the total welfare of everyone in the company taken together, you're objectively wrong. The free sharing of intellectual property destroys the wealth of the one industry in the US that really still is dominant, and by extension, everyone else's wealth. Markets work best when people act while recognizing all cost of their actions. When that effect is disrupted, either by an externality, market power, or the destruction of property rights, our outcome isn't ideal. If we paid for our music, we would have more music and better music. Since we don't, those who do pay finance the happiness of all music lovers. Not very many people pay. I'm not mentioning the cost of enforcement, but since we don't know how they would go about it, I don't really know how one could claim that it is incontrovertibly incorrect and evil.

That is the pure economic justification. Politically and philosophically, I understand it purely by standards of natural rights. Civil rights are just really constructs of the government to make sure the government doesn't screw around too much when it's trying to, among other things, protect property rights. There's an upper limit and lower limit to what we'll accept, but there's no underlying reason to it. They just are what level of intrusion we'll allow this moment to protect natural rights. You said you agree with intellectual property rights, which implies you don't believe in it as a means to an end, but as an end in and of itself; that it is a natural right. I may not agree that such intrusion is worth it, but I also don't think it's crazy and evil and unbelievable and awful and stupid for them to band together. We already are ok with certain intrusions into our lives out of necessity, and the general direction we've been going in in this country, I understand where they're coming from. It's their property, their own backyard. If random anonymous people start lighting fires in yours, you'd probably be pushing the police to profile and identify them when those civil rights are iffy and already tread upon (when people come into the country), or when you are where you know wrongdoers are, like randomly searching a group of people when there is a strong likelihood that one of them has a bomb (when searching the records of an ISP). Would you require a search warrant in the latter situation? It's a very similar situation, only affecting life instead of property. So yeah, it's not really the same thing, but that's subjectively weighing one right against each other (which may sound reprehensible, but is done every day by the government, or by you personally, when you don't give a single dollar to Darfur or whatever). I don't agree with it, but I believe that strong actions of the RIAA are perfectly REASONABLE given where we do elsewhere, and cannot understand how it so ludicrously contradicts our standards outside of intellectual property.

[Mustin]

OverCoat is right. They'll fine a venue.

Dyne and PP - Arguing on the Internet ftw