Slashdot Mirror
RIAA To Target CD-R
mike skoglund writes: "According to this 8/20 RIAA press release, the RIAA is concerned about CD burners. Hilary Rosen, president and CEO of the RIAA, said: "Many in the music community are concerned about the continued use of CD-Rs . . . and we believe this issue deserves further analysis. A preliminary survey of tech savvy online music enthusiasts recently conducted for the RIAA showed that nearly one out of two consumers surveyed downloaded in the past month and nearly 70 percent burned the music they downloaded. All of this activity continues to show the passion of the consumer for music and the need for both legal protection and legitimate alternatives.'" I enjoy Rosen's claim that "consumer loyalty to the physical product still dominates and we are committed to providing the quality product listeners desire." I wonder if they'll eventually push through a Canadian-style tax on anything that can carry data.
Time for me to put my mp3's on punch cards... :)
So -- did the flack who wrote this really expect anyone to conclude from this anything other than, "Yup, we're in a recession..."
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
blank CDs
RIAA, tax rambus memory... it's so much better for multimedia handling than anything else on the planet, so it's the base of MP3 compression, file sharing, ram on home computers that plays those illegal song, run the software that burns CDs, it's the NextBigThing(tm) and they claim market domination in months from now, so you should look seriously on this threath, and stop it before it gets out of hands!
:) I promise! :)
Plus, you'll get our support
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
The money collected from it is supposed to be distributed to content producers to offset the business lost to copying, but the bar to entry as a producer is very high. As a small producer, not only do I have to pay the damned tax on the blank media I buy (and then pass that cost along to my customers), but I can't get my share of the gravy, either.
If the US creates such a tax and sets the bar high enough, then only the "big guys" will be able to pass over it and everyone else has to pass along an extra cost to the consumer, to the great benefit of the big guys. Talk about predatory practices!
-Eldurbarn
If I am going to pay a 'tax' to the RIAA, because it is assumed that I am copying music music, (and this is in fact the justification for the 'tax') then is copying (pirating) music something I can still be sued for? I'm paying for the privlage to act in this fashion, so how could I then be sued for it?
Granted if the RIAA suddenly has this new revenue stream, then a reasonable observer might comment that they'll stop threatening to destroy people who copy music, but given their past history, who really thinks they'll actually refrain from attempting to sue people for this?
The RIAA would do well to consider the potential impact of attempting to tack a surcharge onto recordable media, because the mechanism they use to justify the surcharge will simply be used to define what rights they are granting the customer who pays the surcharge. Essentially a good defense atourney could argue that payment of the surcharge is de-facto entry into a contract with the RIAA, in which the customer is paying for the privlage of recording music.
-- CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
During the whole Napster debate (back before Napster had filters), many journalists pointed out that judges often sided with improvements in technology in cases of copyrights and unauthroized reproduction.
When the audio tape recorders were introduced, the RIAA cried foul as it gave people the ability to make their own copies of music. Ruling was based on fair use.
VHS Recorders same deal. Hollywood and television threw a hissy fit and said it gave people the ability to copy shows and movies without authorization. Judgement was based on the fair use laws from the audio tape incident.
There were a few other examples (like the Xerox copy machine), but these were the most relevant.
CD burners have been available for the home market for quite some time now, all the previous cases came out just as the technology was brand new before a significant number of people had access to them. I think the same fair use law will come into play because it takes a significant amount of physical time and effort to duplicate a CD (whether data or music) or assemble a custom CD.
In addition, some members of RIAA are also in the business of building and selling CD-RWs. Sony is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are others. I just know my burner is made by Sony.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
.... with cassette tapes during the late '70s and early '80s and with video tapes, too. In the end a small tax was levied, they collected their money and people still recorded music and video.
Let's face it, people are going to do a small amount of copying for their own personal use. You do it, I do it - I'll bet even the children of the RIAA demons do it. The RIAA is sweating the small stuff.
The greatest threat of piracy comes from people that will copy in huge volumns for sale on the black market. A lot of this will happen overseas, where RIAA has the least influence.
If they want to sweat the small stuff, I say fine. It hasn't gotten them anywhere in the past - and it won't get them anywhere in the future.
Phillips, Sony and others have invested far too much money in CD-R technology and make far too much off of it to roll over dead for the RIAA.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. The business model where by music makes large amounts of money is dying. In it's place, artists (those backed by record companies) will make money from personal appearances and product endorsements, just like professional sports figures do. Sports figures may make a few million a year, but they pull in much more from product endorsements. That's where the money is and that's where the industry will finally go. The true value in a recording contract for an artist will lie not in the sale of music, but in the sale of his/her image.
I have a problem with a levy tax because it presumes that I am currently or will break the law. Since I do not purchase much music, why the hell I should reimburse the RIAA for money they wouldn't have gotten from me anyway? They aren't entitled to a dime from me. If their business model relies on laws that are impossible to enforce, that's just too bad for them. They aren't entitled to make money and I am not, and should not be, obligated to pay them for goods or services I do not use.
Right. That's partly the reason why we Canadians pay a CD levy tax.
Speaking as a Canadian I love the CD levy. Here's the thing, if money that I pay at purchase time goes to the recording industry then I have the right to use the media to copy music. The legislation is very clear, if I borrow a CD from you and make a copy of it on my "tax paid" CDR I am breaking no law.
The only thing that is illegal in Canada is distributing copies. I can't make a copy and give it to you without breaking the law.
by our corporately-sponsored government
When I read this statement, the image that came to my mind was of the floor of the Senate (or House). But in this case each senator is wearing a uniform with corporate logos. Junior senators probably look like golfers where they have two or three small logos on their sleeves or hat. The real crufty senators look like a stock-car driver where there isn't a single square inch of un-logoed material visible.
When they have to floor and begin to speak, they preface everything with, "The AOL-Charmin-Tidy Bowl gentleman from Virginia believes that Bill 1234 is baloney!"
Hell, I'd be watching CSPAN every night for that!
-tim