[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif "I understand that this is O.K. with you." where did i say that?...yours is a "factual argument"? you still have not illustrated how the riaa is stripping me of my first amendment rights. or my property rights. i am talking about specific claims you made. what are you talking about?

My previous post lays out in detail the exact restrictions that will lead to a de-facto ban on a practise, re-selling CDs, that has been a normal, common, and acceptable prerogative of ownership for as long as CDs have been published.

If you don't think that banning this practise constitutes a restriction on property rights, I would be curious to know exactly what you do think constitutes a restriction on property rights.

I would be curious, that is, except that I have tired of your simplistic gainsaying of my argument, with nothing offered as refutation. You completely ignore my argument, and repeat the same broad, derisive criticism previously offered.

As for my contention about free speech rights, I chose not to include an explanation of that in the previous post for the sake of clarity and brevity. To be honest though, I imagine I would get the same "I know that you are, but what am I" response. So what would be the point.?

 

[Inkmo]

man, I don't live in any of the states affected, but reading that article just made me go purchase a used CD on amazon as an 'eff you guys' to the record industry.

it's always pissed me off that 'you don't own the disc but the right to listen' or somesuch, and yet there is no mechanism in place to protect that right if the physical disk you don't own is ever stolen. buncha facks...

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelongwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Geez.......it's easier in Utah to purchase a gun.

Can out-of-staters buy handguns? cause NY has a horribly expensive and time consuming license process.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelongwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Geez.......it's easier in Utah to purchase a gun. http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...?st=ut#license

Utah only has a D-? Damn, the Brady Campaign must be getting stingy with the F's. Oddly, Utah, Texas, and a couple of other states have worse grades than Florida, but Florida manages an F+. Must be the "Stand your ground" laws.

Anyways.

Compare the EFF's political power against the NRA's political power. Note the Doctrine of First Sale's location in our laws compared to the Second Amendment place. Also note the spread and depth of dedication that consumer intellectual property rights advocates show pales in comparison to the gun rights groups. Combine the three factors.

Simply put, there is no broad based, politically active segment of the population dedicated to consumer intellectual property rights. Without one, the politicians can act with impunity and accept campaign money in return for passing industry favorable laws. The only resort that consumers have is the court system, and justice is notoriously fickle with such large money disparities. So, basically, we're screwed until people take action.

Such as booting politicians out of office for pushing the RIAA's bills. Political donations are only useful for getting reelected, and if taking them causes a pol to lose votes, well... just look at the song and dance presidential contenders have to do because of the NRA.

Or people could also start boycotting the RIAA and it's member organizations. That'd have the nice effect of breaking the RIAA's power in addition to stopping these insane laws,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock&Roll Ninja /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can out-of-staters buy handguns? cause NY has a horribly expensive and time consuming license process.

Nope. Due to Federal laws, out of staters can never buy handguns. Another wonderful way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif The original, more complete article can be found here: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...ac18d43959ac24 ....However, NARM is an association of merchants (independent record stores at that).

Thanks a bunch for posting this. It really helps understand the motivation better.

See, I don't think this is a RIAA thing... this is a NARM thing because they want to protect the interests of the big "new CD" retailers whose business is threatened by used sellers. They are using the piracy argument as a red herring to gather support for these ridiculous laws.

Which is why we should be careful not to eat the red herring and confuse this discussion with a piracy/RIAA/DRM argument! (Sorry if I started to do that myself earlier.)

--Chris

 

[Darkestred]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thinking of selling some used CDs? Be prepared to submit your fingerprints. This is not a joke. Read the link below and weep. Or, better yet, boycott the filth known as the record industry. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ren-bitte.html It's settled. The RIAA is an organized crime family, and it has our stinking politicians in its pocket. I am 46 years old. I thought I had seen everything. I was wrong.

This one is tricky though. When i was younger, i would buy used cds sometimes. Used cds are great for finding gems or hard to find cds (out of print, etc). When you look at it though and you go to the cd store to buy used cds from current bands - these bands are not receiving any of the profits on used cd sales. I would buy used cds for popular bands because their cds consist of nothing but a steaming pile. I support the underground scene and would much rather buy a 10 dollar cd than pay upwards of 12-18 for some popular crap. MHO.

 

[lordkelmain]

Saw this on slashdot earlier.

Sadly, I recall learning about this back in university - when you have the money to lobby (and probably fund PAC's, think-tanks, and politicians), you have the money to make the law of the land.

My God.

- lk

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, I don't think this is a RIAA thing... this is a NARM thing because they want to protect the interests of the big "new CD" retailers whose business is threatened by used sellers. They are using the piracy argument as a red herring to gather support for these ridiculous laws. Which is why we should be careful not to eat the red herring and confuse this discussion with a piracy/RIAA/DRM argument! (Sorry if I started to do that myself earlier.) --Chris

Good point; the distinction is important, and I think I missed it (although I think that the NARM and the RIAA are related to some degree, even if they sometimes work at cross-purposes).

But I don't think that this distinction makes any difference to the beleaguered consumer; it's sort of like the difference between being killed by a blow to the head or a gunshot. The victim is equally dead in either case.

Regardless of who is agitating for these changes, the end result is potentially the loss of a prerogative that consumers have always had.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkestred /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would buy used cds for popular bands because their cds consist of nothing but a steaming pile. I support the underground scene and would much rather buy a 10 dollar cd than pay upwards of 12-18 for some popular crap. MHO.

Absolutely. I was never a big fan of the Police, but on a trip to the Princeton Record Exchange some years ago, I found good-condition vinyl copies of their first three albums for a buck a pop. Yes, please!

I think it's important to support up-and-coming and underground bands by buying their recordings. And there's a way to take it a step further: buy the CDs directly from them at their shows. Some artists have arrangements that let them buy their own CDs from the labels at a steep discount, and then sell them at their shows.

So it's a win-win; you get the official CD at a fair price, and the band gets a better return on the sale than they would if it sold at a conventional retail outlet. And that's assuming you could even find a struggling band's recordings at your local record store. Plus there's the fun of hearing a band for the first time, liking their show, and then popping the disk into your player the minute you get home.

 

[VR6ofpain]

what about eBay?

 

[lutwey]

What..........a cd use or not is ur f#$@ing cd. they might as well ban the selling of used cars(kinda dumd, but even thinking of that is ridiculous). i guess them musicians need an enzo to pair up with their bentley. awwwww i really feel bad for them they only have bentley as of the moment.

 

[kramer5150]

Maybe if current "artists" of today (if you can call them that) wrote good music... people will want to spend their hard earned $$$ on CDs, and feel the need to keep them.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Ooooh. I can't wait for the first test case of this law. You can pass all the laws you want, but how and whether they're enforced is a different matter.

I'd love to see the RIAA, et al. try to explain this one to a jury. Or at least to an appellate court.

This law is crap. Just because the legislature passed it doesn't mean it'll hold up under fire in the real world. I can't imagine anyone being happy with this other than industry execs and politicians feathering their nests with campaign "contributions."

 

[eyeresist]

Lets keep our facts straight: NARM isn't pushing these laws, the guy from NARM is *telling* the Billboard reporter about a trend he's observed. And any link to the RIAA is pure speculation, there's no evidence except that they may potentially benefit.

Pawn shops fencing stolen goods is a major issue, although it doesn't get much coverage. It's hard to police, so they're trying to eliminate the problem at source. I think this is just stupid legislators hitting a small nail with an oversized hammer, and law-abiding CD sellers/buyers are just unintended "collateral damage".

 

[ken36]

Corruption prevails.