[deepsand]

Simply saying that you disagree does not a rational argument make; such requires that you


Provide substantive premises, from which your stated conclusion can be deduced in a logically consistent* manner; and,

In like manner, respond to substantive rebuttal and/or counter-claims, showing that such are not logically sound*.
Not only have you failed to do either, but have steadfastly refused to engage in rational discourse.


You are, therefore, simply engaging in sophistry, and your opinions therefore remain but unsubstantiated ones.

[deepsand]

All of which is non-substantive, and irrelevant to both the facts at hand and the legal issues involved.



As earlier pointed out, our Federal government was deliberately designed to avoid tyrannies of the majority such as you would here advocate. Law that is subject to the passions of the moment is no law at all, but simply anarchy.



Your position has naught to do with any benefits accruing to artists, but everything to do with your simply wanting something for free. You want a license to steal, which you do not and shall not have.

[Boomshadow]

You can insist that whatever you argue is rational and that whatever your opponents argue is irrational until the bold function breaks in this software (;)), but I can still summarize all the text you have contributed with the following:



"Nuh-uhhhhh!"



The question here is not Ms. Thomas-Rasset's guilt or innocence; the jury found her at fault. The question is, and I quote, "Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?"



Your diatribes against our mechanics do nothing to resolve that question. Please consider the following:



1) In almost a decade of the RIAA's policy of active legal pursuit of file sharers, how much money from their legal victories has gone to the artists they constantly claim to support? I have seen figures ranging from zero to diddly-squat, with a median of bupkes, and a mean of zilch.



2) In said legal pursuit, how much of Title 17, U.S. Code has the RIAA's lobbyists succeeded in altering? Answer: The DMCA, at the expense of fair use, a concept that the RIAA's lawyers and lobbyists continue to erode.



3) Have the RIAA, as plaintiffs, ever substantively proven the actual specific monetary damages caused by the defendants? The verdict against Ms. Thomas-Rasset seems like an arbitrary punitive award. None of it is likely to ever go to the artists. Most of the time, the cases never even go to trial; the RIAA uses the threat of a lawsuit to extract massive settlements from their victims.



The artists can now live without the publishers. The artists who sign with the publishers typically lose ownership of their own catalogs, which smacks of indentured servitude--always has, always will. The publishers know they cannot live without the artists, so under the aegis of the RIAA, they game the system to "support them" without actually paying them.



The solution is tough, but simple, and three-pronged. The first prong: artists, do not sign with an RIAA label, or with anyone who insists on ownership of your content. The operative phrase in any contract should be first serialization rights. If you reside in North America, you should primarily be dealing first with first North American serialization rights. Repeat for your region of residence. Novelists deal this way, and it's worked for over a century. Imagine if J.K. Rowling had written the Harry Potter novels and signed away ownership--or worse, worked for hire.



The second prong: consumers, where possible, pay the artists directly whenever possible. Educate yourselves by researching your favorite artists. Find out how they get paid. If they offer their work directly to consumers without the intervention of a label, buy it that way. If they get substantial compensation some other way, such as a high percentage of revenue from concerts or merchandise, pay that way. Vote with your wallet.



The third, and toughest prong: lobby your representatives and Senators. The opposition is doing it. You should too. It takes 20 minutes to write a letter explaining your position and to mail it to the representative and Senators for your district and state respectively. Phoning their offices takes at most 5 minutes each. Establish a relationship so you aren't just another faceless voter; this can take longer, but starts with those first two steps, and can be invaluable. Where legally applicable, offer to take your politicians to lunch (if you're not allowed to pay, go Dutch) and present your views. Bring facts. Be polite and succinct.



Employ these three prongs, and eventually, maybe, the RIAA won't be able to prong us so often.

[Boomshadow]

Whoa!



You don't get to define my position. You are out of line and out of bounds. My position was and remains that the only fair exchange of content for funding occurs when the artists and consumers limit the involvement of the publishers. Any further attempt to gainsay my position without positive proof will be reported as abuse. This is your first and final warning.



By the way, lest you forget, the topic remains "Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?" That's what most of the rest of us are discussing. You're the one who's telling us what kind of government you think the United States employs (by the way, technically, it's a Federally Constituted Representative Republic, so you're even wrong about that irrelevant point), and spouting legal jargon.



As such, your attacks on individuals here are the irrelevant text, even when you don't go completely ad hominem. Please get back on topic. I'm done with you.

[deepsand]

Well, since you claim the right to define my position, then I've a reciprocal right to define yours as I see it.


For the record, do note that, despite the title of this thread, the fact remains that the writer of this article, like all related preceding articles, did omit important material facts, such that said title is deliberately biased so as to be inflammatory.





As for the overwhelming number of posts which answer "yes" to the question posed, yours included, the sole clear goal is that all should have a license to freely copy that which belongs to another. To claim otherwise is folly.





If and when all such step forward, and pay the artists their due for each and every work that is so copied, then and only then shall their voices have any credence.





Finally, as for your "final warning," re. "abuse," feel free to so act as you see fit; I've no need in such regard to defend anything that I've said.

[Boomshadow]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I would like to say two things:

1) I agree with you!

2) Where can I buy your music?

[Boomshadow]

I'm not defining your position because you haven't stated one. All you've done is more and more "Nuh-uh!" attacks on everyone else's. I've stated my position repeatedly, and you keep getting it wrong.

If you're stating that the RIAA has not gone too far, and I'm not saying you are, since I can't figure out your position on this, the actual topic the rest of us are trying to discuss here.

If I did claim the right to define your position on this matter, I'd accuse you of trolling, but I'm not claiming that right. So far, only you have, and as such you have gone out of bounds as stated before. You have every right to interpret what I'm saying (even if you're so off base that you can't even see the base from where you are), but ascribing untruths to that position, as you did a few responses ago, is libel. You want proof? I have over 700 CDs from non-RIAA and RIAA labels (I don't believe in a boycott) behind me.

By the way, the reason people have accused you here in this space of working for the RIAA is that you have adopted one of their key tactics: assuming that all their listeners are criminals, regardless of proof. That's one reason why the RIAA goes too far. Once and for all, the topic at hand is a yes-or-no question. Answer it, and support your own statements, instead of merely attacking others'.

[quackadilly]

"I'm not defining your position because you haven't stated one. All you've done is more and more "Nuh-uh!" attacks on everyone else's."



After reading through the whole thread I have to agree with this statement.
-----
For the record:



Jammie Thomas-Rasset was accused of sharing over 1700 songs. She was only found guilty of illegally sharing 24 of them. That is $80,000 per song.

"In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing."

news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10268199-93.html

[deepsand]

"+By the way, the reason
people have accused you here in this space of working for the RIAA is
that you have adopted one of their key tactics: *assuming that all their
listeners are criminals, regardless of proof+.*"



Actually I've neither explicitly nor implicitly expressed such an assumption. What I have plainly said is that "downloading" constitutes the making of a duplicate, that such making, without the express permission of the copyright holder, is illegal, and therefore that anyone either making or facilitating such making violates the Law.



The issue at hand has nothing to do with "listening," and everything to do with "illegal duplication." That many insist that they've a "right" to make such duplicates speaks volumes regarding their lack of respect for the rights of others.



Any argument re. "listening" is a red herring. So to for the artificial conflation of "sharing" and "copying." And, ditto for those re. involving the matter of artist compensation, industry profits, etal.



And, dressing the issue up in the guise of being a battle against the Evil Empire is the strawman fallacy.



Ask yourself these questions.


* Of all those who justify their making free copies by way of the "artists' plight," how many make any attempt to compensate the artists for such copies?
* If the artists themselves so greatly favor a "right to copy," where are their voices screaming for such?


The answers are most obvious.



File "sharing" provides the artists with no direct benefit; and, a measure of any indirect benefit, such as increased exposure, is speculative at best. The only certain benefit accrues to those who get something for nothing.

[deepsand]

Kindly revist the facts.



It is not the case that she was found guilty of having done something re. "only" a certain number of recordings; rather, it is the case that a selected number were presented as being illustrative of her facilitating the making of illegal duplicates of in excess of 1700 recordings.



Additionally, you might study the entire history of this case, rather than relying on the greatly truncated and deliberately biased version here presented by PC World.

[Boomshadow]

Again, all you're doing here is posting that everyone else is wrong and you're right--but not why. Once and for all in the name of all that is good in this world, answer the question: Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?

In answering:

1) Defend the Thomas-Rasset award of $80,000 per song.



2) Defend the RIAA's tactics, particularly the fact that the numerous lawsuits and settlements have not resulted in any more money to the artists, without whom there would be no RIAA. Extra credit for defending their surveillance and the Sony/BMG rootkit.



3) Quit attacking what we're saying. I want to know what you're saying. I only speak for myself here, but I doubt that I'm the only one here who is sick unto death of your pedantic, egotistical deconstruction of our mechanics. This is not a fraggin' debate class. It's a forum, nothing more. We are not required by the Terms of Service to please you with our style of debate, but I think the fact that we do not is not lost on us. We get it. Now address the topic.

[deepsand]

To repeat, you are employing a strawman fallacy.

[Boomshadow]

Well, at least your answer was short. Evasive and rude, but short.

Oh, and to repeat, you're dodging the question. Do you feel the RIAA's fight against file sharing has gone too far?

[deepsand]

Sorry, but I don't engage in sophistic debate.



The question as posed by the writer is a strawman.

[Boomshadow]

Okay, so you don't accept the topic, but you won't leave the thread alone or try to foster substantive discussion.



You have an appropriate screen name, for that is the foundation of your every byte of text here: deep sand.



After all, attacking the mechanics of others' positions as sophistry without stating a position is itself a form of sophistry. In other words, I do not think that word means what you think it means.



Fine.



How would you, o ye of mighty intellect so well hidden, phrase and answer the question?



Of course, if you decline to answer, please try to take less than 1,000 words to do so.

[deepsand]

To the contrary, I have engaged in nothing but substantive discourse. I simply refuse to be distracted by red herrings and strawmen.


On the other hand, you have persisted in trying to so distract, a tactic formally called misdirection. Such will not work with me.
Message was edited by: deepsand [for spelling]

[backbuster]

The RIAA does not represent the artists. RIAA was formed to represent the recording industry mainly record labels and distributors. The artists have the RAC (Recording Artist Coalition) which was formed to protect their rights especially to protect them from the RIAA and their infringement on artist's rights.

[deepsand]

This question should rightfully be put to those whose materials are being duplicated, and to no one else.

[Boomshadow]

I'm sure you really believe that.



All I've gotten from your "substantive debate" so far is that in your point of view, none of us can say anything right.



As such, since you are clearly superior to everyone here in every way, may we prevail upon your superlative intellect to deign to please state for us, preferably in 25 words or less, your point?

[Boomshadow]

You're absolutely right, and I'm sorry for implying otherwise. However, I seem to recall the RIAA's lawyers and public relations professionals consistently mentioning artist compensation, even though the RIAA has a history of stopping at the mention of such.