Slashdot Mirror
RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use'
dotpavan writes "EFF has this article about RIAA saying that ripping CDs and backing them up does not come under Fair use.
Ars Technica also reports on this, by quoting, "The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights.""
An organisation whose entire business model is now to resell the same product over and over again is hardly going to say that buying it once is enough. But in a world of "one dollar, one vote", who's going to stop them?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
Thanks, so I'll just buy another copy. Great solution.
So are they arguing that you have to buy music from an online dealer (something akin to iTunes) if you want to be able to use your portable device? Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs.
NINJA SPIRIT - The Ancient Art of Insanity
Who would say RIAA though ripping CDs is not fair use?
a boycott? Seriously... it seems the only way to get the attention of hostile businesses is to deny them income.
I'm not allowed to listen to my own music on my own musicplayer?
Isn't there some kind of hunting-permit for out-of-control corporate idiots? Somebody should stop this madness!
When I was a kid my, my friend's dad has an audiophile turntable, cassette deck and reel-to-reel setup. When I would purchase and album, I would take it over to his house and copy it to cassette and sometimes reel-to-reel. I would never play the album again unless I lost or damaged the cassette. What options would I have today if the RIAA has their way?
All the worlds indeed a
" Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
No duh. When my "The Wall" CD was wrecked, I found the music on Kazaa Lite, and it as at an extremely affordable price I could not refuse.
" Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
I thought I was "licensing the content," not "buying the CD." Shouldn't I be able to put my licensed content wherever I want?
Until the companies offer free download replacement of the music I am (ahem) licensing, why should I care what they consider "affordable"?
Since when did enjoy == screw the customer for every last dime?
... but this is simply going too far!
And to all the people who laugh when you tell them that the record companies would rather have you pay twice or more for music that you already bought, well here's proof. They really, honestly, do believe that what you bought is not yours. It's still theirs to do with as they please.
Starting tomorrow, I'm going to start bringing my CD's back, even old ones. Nothing of this was mentioned when I bought them, and I don't think this is fair. Hence I want my money back. I urge everyone to do the same.
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
With that particular declaration under oath in the Grokster case in mind, I hope this comes to court.
The only question that remains then is "which of the two statements is perjury?".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So if it's illegal to use them the way i want, i guess i'm not buying CDs anymore.
Ripping a CD that you own to an mp3 player, is just like your CD player reading the cd ahead into a buffer. Are the RIAA saying that CD players with buffers are illegal?
Downloading music or movies that you don't own is illegal, I agree with them there.
However this "belief" is just horse poo poo. Is their goal now to kill the MP3 player market and drive us back to portable CD players? It would seem so.
I realize that this is their opinion, hopefully they won't convince a judge/senator/congressman that they are right.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
I thought I was "licensing the content," not "buying the CD." Shouldn't I be able to put my licensed content wherever I want?
Until the companies offer free download replacement of the music I am (ahem) licensing, so I can store that content on a blank CD or wherever else I want, why should I care what they consider "affordable"?
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
If you ask me, the RIAA "enjoys" its copyrights a bit too much already. They're trying to transform the music industry from one in which you "buy a copy of a song" into one in which you "buy a limited licence to play the song" under which you have no fair use rights (since you dont actually own the copy, only the right to play it). This is bad for all of us, and I would suggest that companies like Apple really helped pull off the bait and switch. At this point, if people stopped using the online download services and started using CDs again instead (for the rights) the record companies would probably pull the CDs or encrypt them somehow so you still had to be bound by their overrarching licensing agreements.
Sorry guys, but I think the age of "my music" or "owning music" is dead, and currently in the process of being burried. This is just the latest shovel of dirt.
And, in a world where the top few decision makes get most of the money and it's a lot of money they will keep pushing it and trying to beat down the voice of the majority.
Evolution or ID?
I think I just spotted the first 2006 April Fools post on Slashdot, didn't I?
I stuck my CD in a copy machine and have 10~ printouts of the data side of the disk. Let them try and argue that is not Fair Use!
Metallica's Black Album - $18.98.
How affordable.
What power does the RIAA have? As far as I understand it they have no legal powers so who cares what they say? They can sue people over ripping cd's for an ipod, but then they'll have to go after some pretty powerful people (I remember reading something somewhere about Bush's ipod (maybe they should be encouraged to go after him as he should be able to fight back ..... with an army if necessary)).
Look it up. RIAA sued Creative in the early days of MP3 players and lost.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
They can say that all they want. Doesn't make it true, though.
Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.
I have several CDs that I couldn't replace easily. Sometimes they go out of print.
What is tha point with this people? Saying shuch stupid things aint not going to change peoples mind. And besides, once again (just like sony by himself did) they are attacking the wrong people (the ones thal legally purchase music). So it is not fail, if a i want to listen to music on the go, i have to use those "old fashioned" discmans. Yeah sure, not problem. Just like in the mid of the 90'. WTF!! This peple are crazy. Times are changing and so business practices. In order to survive record company should change their ideology and philosophy so like apple did (and im not a mac fanboy, but they have made all the right desisions in tha last years). I believe that in the future, musicians wont need this stupid buffers withing their music and people. If your music is good, than internet will be your friend and will help you all the way. Think about that? Well, the RIAA has, and they fear that. That is what all this problem is about. They are not bitching about their current incommings, they are bitching because they now a very dark future is upon them.
do desperate things. Is this the beginning of the end for the RIAA and their music industry trust?
RIAA Goon 1: Okay, so we want to make a bunch more money because we're greedy bastards. How do we do it?
RIAA Goon 2: Let's sell CDs covered with heroin! Then they'll need to keep buying more CDs to get their fix!
G1: Although we're above the law, I don't wanna use heroin. It's expensive.
G2: Hmm... I've got it! Let's charge them for something they ALREADY OWN!
G1: Great Scott!! Like what?
G2: We'll tell those suckers that ripping CDs to MP3 players (especially iPods!!) is illegal and that they'll need to buy DIGITAL (ooooh the d-word) music for their MP3 players.
G1: Brilliant! Except, we already said that was legal when we sued Grokster.
G2: Well, say now it isn't!! The dumb consumers bend to us!! We are above the law!!
G1: Well, all right. Good idea, Jim. I'm gonna go now, I have $2.4 million from Britney Spears' latest album to roll around in and wipe my ass with. See ya!
I am the Penguin. The Penguin of.... of..... of..... aw, never mind.
One possibility, however, is that they want to argue that we don't automatically have the right to make such copies of purchased CDs, but that they will grant us limited rights to do so. Or maybe they just aren't thinking.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
In Soviet Russia, the RIAA rips YOU!
...they could be correct. I don't know the law well enough to say - if memory serves correct, it gives some examples of things which are fair use, none of which include anything like backing up or shifting from one media to another for personal use. So yeah, technically they could be correct.
But I think most people would agree that fairness is also a moral concept, and in that sense it's obvious that it is indeed fair use to copy something you already have to your MP3 player or PC to listen to in a more convenient way.
Here's a hint to the lovely people at the RIAA and similar bodies around the world: if people can't use CDs in this kind of way, they won't buy them.
Game dev and music blog
Am I missing something here? Don't the RIAA get a cut from the music variety of CD-Rs (the kind that only work in the settop boxes, not PC burners? What are those for then? Those were sold to use as a way to make custom CDs by taking tracks from discs you already owned and mixing a perfect CD for yourself. Now, this isn't allowed? They need to get their arguments straight.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
January 24 on C-SPAN there were hearings on Senator Smith's Broadcast Flag bill.
The RIAA spokesman said the Broadcast Flag was needed because with HD radio
(which is just digitial radio), now people could record music off the air
without paying for it. They want to stop that. They put forth the CD ripping argument, too, saying there was nothing to prevent people from copying songs willy-nilly and sharing them, denying royalties to the struggling artists.
The Senators didn't like his view at all. It seems that many of them have
IPods, and like to grab songs, interviews, and other audio so they can listen to
them on the plane! They like their Dean Martin as much as the kids like their Ice Masta Jam.
I was pleased to see liberals and conservatives both on the side of fair use,
rather than on the side of corporate profit. I think they've been getting mail.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
The problem with the copyright system, as it is, is that the whole thing was setup at a time when information was not freely transferable. With the expansion of internet, the old system as it is simply doesn't make sense. We will probably have to endure much more madness before legislation catches up with current technology.
They can whine all they want about me ripping what I already own. Whatever.
Dead Record Industry, You've done a great job connecting with your customers. Promote those VPs who advocated this sort of crap, so the entire broken godforsaken industry can rot away faster....
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
"Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs."
The fact that they don't want you to make a backup or copy it to your ipod doesn't mean it's illegal. I mean, I think it's wrong if everybody doesn't send me $20, but that's just my opinion.
No, CD's are still the best deal because you can purchase them for under $10, you can back them up, you can put them on any of your own portable music players without restriction, you get liner notes, and you get the best possible quality sound (that is available to the public).
What's not to like? The fact that you have to take 5 minutes to rip it to an mp3?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I have been buying CDs and ripping them to play on my iRiver. I may as well just download them instead of buying in future if its just as illegal.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I buy another copy, and they get royalties twice.
Why? Have they done twice as much work? Have they had to do twice as much marketting? Have their overheads suddenly gone up because I broke a CD? All they have to do is replace the physical media.
...all the music I buy on CD is from indie labels. On the whole the major labels are totally formulaic and boring anyway. If there's anything I am interested I buy it from iTunes and download.
The problem is older artists and back catalogue. Or it was until I discovered this place. On Tuesday I received four more albums on lovely heavy weight vinyl which sounds wonderful on my audio and which is easy to rip with the right hardware.
Buy a legit copy for $6.50
/ ref=dp_olp_2/002-0716359-5497615?_encoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000002H97
Oops, it's used. Well, I tried to help them.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I'm a little confused. When I buy a CD, am I buying the physical disc, in which case I surely get the right to do with it as I see fit, or I'm buying the right to listen to the music, in which case the media that it's on should not be relevant.
I can fully understand (assuming that I am only buying the rights) that I can't legally copy the music and give/sell that to someone else, but I'm no longer clear on what 'buying' a CD actually buys me.
16 million iPod sales in 2005 alone. Nearly one billion songs purchased from iTMS. 90% and 70% market share respectively. Just thought I'd remind you that the market has spoken and you're old. In closing, screw you.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Join Tor today!
Let's see here.
Original CD price: $16.99
Backup CD price: $0.30
Any specific reason I should be required to pay approximately fifty-six times more money to replace a scratched/mutilated CD?
How is ripping a CD I bought and listening to that music on my iPod different than recording a CD I bought onto a cassette and listening to that out of my boom box? Didn't the RIAA already have a 'fair use' tax placed on blank media that takes this into consideration?
What the RIAA doesn't realize is that there are quite a few people like me that ONLY purchase CDs so I can listen to them on my iPod. Before getting a portable mp3 player I would purchase perhaps one CD per year (I listened to the radio in my car and at work). Now I buy CDs so I have new content for my mp3 player.
The RIAA will be shooting themselves in their collective FOOT if they turn a CD into a 'limited playability license'. I for one would not buy another CD if I didn't have legal 'fair use' rights to the content.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
'Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.'
Next, I'm sure they're going to say that copying the contents of a data CD (Microsoft Office, or Frontstep CRM) to a network software repository is infringant use on that license. Just prevents me from having to
- Find the CD once I know that I need it...
- Determine that the CD isn't being kept in the master disc binder...
- Determine which of my coworkers was the last to use it...
- Try to root through their crap in an attempt to find it.
Back to music discs, though.So I'm not allowed to store the data on a networked disk drive to enjoy throughout my own personal network, nor am I allowed to play it on my own iPod, iPod Pico, or Rio Karma, or whatever the hell it is you kids have nowadays.
Am I breaking the 'license' I bought when I play it in a CD player with 120second or 300second skip protection? Technically, the data has been encoded to digital media, and is therefore must be mutable into a file format.
Online alternatives would seem like the solution. Because then I can just download an album, burn it to a disc, rerip it without copy protection, and REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS.
Seriously, this shit has got to stop. Maybe satelite radio is where it's at...
Informatus Technologicus
This revolution is really taking off...
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
So, would the honorable representant of the RIAA please explain me where i can get copies of albums by the Cranes and other musicians who were dumped by record companies for making music which was not commercial enough?
Trust me, I work for the government.
iTunes doesn't rip their catalog nearly as well as I do. Higher bitrates, and in fact, the signal as burnt to the disk, are only available on CD's. If you are playing on higher end equipment (something like some Shure in-ear headphones) or your home stereo, an actual CD will yield a lot better source material. And when using my home system, I'd rather play the disk than the ripped versions. Of course, some can't tell the difference, but some can. I think iTunes rips are ok, but they aren't great... and the fact that backups are *limited* and I have to use their service to "authorize/deauthorize" does not help at all. I don't think the RIAA realizes most of their customers are honest people who are not "stealing", but rather just want to avoid lugging a lot of CD's around. They don't get their customer base at all.
... if they're going to whine about it, why didn't they mention this sooner?
The RIAA is one of the few companies left that, no matter what the story, we can always legitimately bash. I wish it weren't so, but that's just the way they are.
What they are really saying is that they don't want to be relagated to the role of ISP, or even "content" provider - as these are fields that are becoming too comoditized and thus not profitable.
What they want to be is end to end "entertainment solution" providers, marketing a very specific "solution" for you entertainment needs, that can be specially tailored and marketed to your demographic defined needs. Unless they can control their product from end to end without any interference, redirection or alteration on the consumers end. Otherwise they cannot ensure that you obtain the full enjoyment of the product and maintain their marketing image.
A music CD is only meant to be played in a genuine, authorized and trusted music CD player. If you want to play the music on an iPod, then you must purchase the iPod comptable iTunes version of the song which is available at a reasonable price.
If you happen to want to access your content on a Linux PC, then you will have to wait until Linux users become a profitable and mainstream demographic that is willing to accept our Digital Rights Management software.
as it is to download that track from Kazaa then why bother buy the CD?
Well, here in Canada, a media levy has been charged on recordable media -- ostensibly to compensate the artists for 'stealing' their music. The only music I have has been purchased legally -- I have every single original CD. Somehow I doubt under their funding formulas any of the artists I listen to are actually being compensated under this levy. It probably all goes to the big mega acts; the smaller artists and the ones who have been long dead are probably ignored from this formula.
The only things I burn to disk are data, and mixed CDs for playing in my car. As far as I'm concerned, I've never stolen anything from them, and they're the ones stealing me by charging me this levy under the assumption I must be comitting theft.
They will never convince me that I don't have right of first sale on my CDs, and they will never convince me that I can't buy a CD and then listen to it on whatever device I wish to.
Someone really needs to stop this absurdity with the recording industries.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"here are the keys to your car sir"
"thankyou"
"ohh, sir. you cannot drive it though."
portfolio
direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights
And I am experiencing a direct attack on my ability to enjoy my music. This is the exact reason I have stopped buying music in the first place.
Can the folks at the RIAA really can't be that stupid. No one on the planet is that stupid are they? Do they automatically breathe? or do they have to remind themselves that to gather up more money they need to take each breath. How do they live with themselves? What other form of species is anywhere near this destructive to their own well being?
I actually do try to view these these kinds of issues, from the other perspective as well, and every time I try it, all I can come back to is "we want more money". We don't have enough money. Well RIAA ya know what? I honestly see no reason why a group of people like you need to exist, and if you all fell into the burning pit of Hell, Hell would have gotten the wrong end of the deal.
I tried to be legal. I really did. Not sure I care anymore.
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
Didn't SCOTUS say backing up is fair use?
From Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v Grokster, Donald Verrilli representing the petitioners:
Funny how I can't find this on anyone's website anymore
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argum ent_transcripts/04-480.pdf
http://jfin.org/jFin pure java open source financial library
sncr :-)
www.thepiratebay.org
And how is this any different. I would argue that a mastered cassette from a high quality tape probably has similar loss characteristics to a typical mp3. A HiQ VHS tape will in fact be superior to an MP3 (near lossless). And how is this different than shifting media to an mp3 player?
Regarding letter sent to RIAA: movies are next. Screw you also.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Join Tor today!
doesnt american law say you can legaly make ONE 1:1 backup copy for personal use only to stop the original from becoming damaged? so, mp3 isnt 1:1, its lossy, so if you use apples lossless codec, or WMA lossless, you can rip to your hearts content, and be totaly within the law, and untouchable by RIAA :)
portfolio
Here in the UK, there are no "fair use" protections that allow individuals to rip CDs onto their hard drive or iPod. To do so is an infringement of copyright.
But so what? If the music industry cares, they can sue me and get a court order requiring me to irrevocably delete those files from my iPod and hard drive, and to cease from any similar activity in future. Until they get round to that - and believe me, hell will freeze over before music companies try that one, since doing so would be the PR meltdown of all time - then I couldn't care less, and I'm certainly not about to spend upwards of £2,500 repurchasing my music collection on iTunes.
Oops! Couldn't do that anyway - I use Linux. Guess that makes me a thief twice over, then.
[rant]
I understand copyrights and piracy and all the issues around all that. That isn't my focus for this article...
If it is indeed the RIAA's choice to try to prohibit putting one's music on one's portable, this latest thing is lunacy. It IS fair use to listen to one's music on alternate devices that one owns!!! Every artist I know (including myself) WANTS people to listen to their music!!! How is this latest thing going to PROMOTE music? How is it going to create or keep FANS interested?
I don't normally get hot under the collar about this stuff, but this isn't very smart on their part. When you've bought a CD or bought tunes from some service, the listener has every right to want to listen to it! Putting a copy on a portable (or putting it on a backup CD) doesn't amount to piracy - it is normal use.
Many of us give away music in an effort to try to get people to discover our sounds. MOST of us WANT people to jam/groove/listen to our music while doing things that are important to fans (music is a part of daily life for most folks, and me, personally, I'd like to be a part of that - my musical friends feel the same way) and portables are a ubiquitous means of "being there."
You CAN'T forget about fans, RIAA! Period!
[/rant]
Sorry for the rant post, Slashdot. I feel better now.
A Passionate Independent Musician
If they have the right to tell you what do do with the purchased CD, then there must still be a contract between you. Correct? Now, if they have unilaterally changed the contract, that is a breech of contract case.
The RIAA and MPAA have essentially trampled on all of our rights as citizens in order to make some more money. Now, I think most of us are reasonable people here and we want to see people get rewarded for their work but the current copyright laws are just plain stupid. I'd prefer 25 years but I'd be willing to let that time limit be doubled. 50 years is more than enough time for any person or corporation to reap the benefits of their creations. After 50 years, copyrighted material should enter the public domain.
Remember that copyrights and patents aren't some inherient right. Copyrights and patents are contracts between creators and every other citizen of this counry. We agree to give the creator an exclusive right to control who can reproduce a work with the understanding that after a certain limited amount of time the work will enter the public domain so that everyone can benefit from it.
...music buys YOU!
Join Tor today!
Honestly, is there much point these days in actually bothering to buy CDs or pay for music from the iTunes Music Store, those are the only manners I nowadays go about acquiring new music, was this move pointless? Should I just throw in the towel and begin downloading again?
After all, paying them money is illegal now supposedly....
I Quit.
i) If one is buying the *rights* to the data when one buys a CD, doesn't that mean that if one breaks/scratches the CD, one should be able to ask the store for another copy at the cost of the media since the data has already been "bought"?
ii) If one is buying the CD as an object similar to how one buys a car, then surely what the hell one does with it is nobody's business, even if one makes a million copies and seels them. After all, Ford cannot sue you for customising your car so that it runs on air or water and telling others how to do the same.
Now it seems to me that record companies want to have it both ways. Either (i) is true. Or (ii) is. Both cannot be. And it seems to me that if it came to the crunch, most companies would choose (i) since it protects the business model. Fair enough. But has anybody ever gotten a replacement CD for the cost of a CDR? No? Didn't think so...
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
It is exactly wanton comments like this which, I am sure give many downloaders a warm glow and pleasurable feeling whenever they download a song. Indeed, they probably feel it a duty after hearing this type of thing. It is exemplary of the record companies wanting both (i) and (ii) leaving the customer with nothing.
And those who are happy about buying DRM/iTunes only tracks are selling themselves short. CDs are in every way superior since they allow (i) and leave (ii) up to your own conscience. DRM music does not allow (ii) and only supports a limited form of (i). Not to mention the cost advantage.
To throw more fat into the fire, if (i) is true, then one should be able to "sell" the spare tracks on the CD which one doesn't like?
Their giving their "opinion" that it's illegal. That doesn't make it illegal, it just means they're jerks.
Today the Record Industry of Ameria (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) released a joint statement regarding the fair use of Music CDs and Movie DVDs. It states that listening to music CDs using CD players was immoral, illegal and said that people who listen to music are thevies and criminals. Similarly, people to buy motion picture DVDs and the proceed to what them are scum and should be sent to Guantanimo with all the other enemies of the state. The two organisations provide a helpful list of those activities which are considered acceptable and those that are not.
Acceptable
~~~~~~~~~~
Buying CDs and DVDs.
Not Acceptable
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copying (read pirating) music CDs to MP3 players (especially those f**king iPods!)
Copying (read pirating) music CDs and movie DVDs to audio and/or video tape.
Lending music CDs and DVD movies to your friends.
Listening to CDs.
Whatching DVD movies.
Downloading divx movies from Limewire.
Buying pirated CDs/DVDs.
The RIAA and the MPAA state that all these unacceptable actions help crime and support terrorist organisations such as Al-Queda and must be banned, and the perpiTRAITORS should be shot (preferably by Dick Cheney!)
return 0; }
A lot of stuff goes out of print, small lables go under, you can search years at used record stores and not find a replacement. If you have a moral objection to the ebay/paypal conglomerate, you're screwed. (If you think ebay/paypal is the greatest thing hagen daaz ice cream, and they have not screwed you _yet,_ that still doesn't mean you can find a replacement.)
Any replacement vinyl or CDs you can find, apparently you are still not allowed to media shift to your ipod? Bite me.
More music, fewer hits
The RIAA can puff its chest and posture all it wants, but they ultimately only alienate their customer base who have other options and now know that they do.
I haven't bought a CD in a very long time, and clearly my life has only benefited from my not poisoning my ears with the latest teeny-bopper drivel, which seems to be the industry's chief product.
My sig is too lon
The RIAA seeks to change the conditions of the sale after the fact. There was no rule barring the copying of CDs or vinyl records to digital format for the purpose of backup or for the purpose of having the music in a more convenient format when the CD was sold. Afterall, the RIAA did not provide any alternative. Many vinyl albums have never been released on CD. For example, one of my Commander Cody records, Country Casanova, was only released on vinyl. It contains several tracks not found on any of Cody's CDs.
The RIAA has become a rogue organization of litigious thugs and shakedown artists. They have accumulated many enemies. When bad things befall RIAA associates, the pool of suspects will be vast.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
With the iPod being so popular I can't imagine anyone (except RIAA themselves) being happy with this.
I honestly think that's the only way to stop this madness, not only boycott, but the artists need to take a stand as well. Possibly release iTunes only albums and never have to worry about going through RIAA to distribute their music.
Either they sell you a license and you can loose your copy but still get it back, because you own a license, not a copy.
Or you buy a CD as a "thing" and can do whatever you feel with it, as long as you don't sell the content to someone else.
At least that is how it should be and how it used to be in Germany, but we are working to get to where the US law is now. And we are pickung up speed.
That the mass media companies will not be happy till they have totally captive audiences that get thier money sucked directly out of thier account as soon as it is put there. The way these people talk, you would think they would want a setup like the machines had in The Matrix except we are generating thier all precious revenue streams instead of electricity.
Crap like this is why I quit buyibng music years ago, I just listen to the radio now.
You say you want a revolution....
This just gives me even more of a reason to continue pirating my music. It's because of these ridiculous "rules" people pirate music in the first place, not to mention being overpriced and most stuff today isn't really worth my money.
in Windows Vista this directory will be named:
Their Music
Their Pictures
Maybe stop giving them our dollars?
It's so obvious people...
You need to buy a copy of the song for EVERY piece of hardware. See you get the CD for your CD player. You buy the songs online to put on your MP3 player. You buy a DVD-Audio copy for your DVD drive. You buy the songs online again for your MP3 CD's for your car stereo. Oh, and lest we forget, you write a check to RIAA for the copies of the songs that are in your head. Wait, you HAVEN'T written your check yet? You should be ashamed!
The retail price of a CD includes the money siphoned in the distribution channel. The IP value of a CD (performer + composer + producer) is about $5, the residual is marketting + distribution. Apparently CDs follow the movie industry model of loading the cost into the distribution channel, where it is safe from the grubby hands of artists. These essentially free distribution channels are a direct threat to this model.
Being able select individual tracks permits you to pay only for the oats, leaving the turd on the road; thus killing another well established profit model.
RIAA is monopoly and clearly acts like that. They want maximum profits and they can get easy away with that, because there are hord of brainwashed masses who will buy anything Britney category musicians will produce. It is sad that if I choose to ignore them (there are very healthy count of unsigned artists, even with real pophits), I have to ignore bunch of artists I really love. However, RIAA actions are clearly pushing envelope here and they are acting realy dumb.
For example, I just really hope that Radiohead won't sign with some big label and will stay in indie arena, as they have such chance now (their contract expired with "Hail To The Thief"). They newest record promises lot of their early age hits like "Last flowers", "Nude (Don't Get Any Ideas)", also their newest songs gives a good feeling.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
They only said iPod, so you're fine. Carry on.
Stop spending money on CDs, recorded music and DVDs. Go to live concerts, cinemas, community cinemas, listen to what you already own. Buy CDs from small local bands, self recorded or buy CDs from small indipendent labels.
Or just stop buying CDs all together. Listen to what you have, listen to the radio, listen to your friend's CDs (I said listen, see, not copy or rip).
I stopped buying CDs 2 years ago, now I go to concerts, I listen to what I had already, I buy CDs when I see a band performing in a venue or on the streets, or else I just keep my money!
If a very large number of people on the earth (or all of them!) went on consumer's strike for an entire year, that would change the terms of all this nonsense!
Am I buying the right to listen to the contents of the CD, or am I buying the CD? If I buy the right to listen to the content, then the format that content is in is irellavent, whether it's my iPod, the original CD, or files on my PC. If I am buying the CD, then I can do whatever the heck I want to do with it, even sell it used.
You can't have it both ways. CDs need to come with EULA. They can't change the rules on us every week.
Time for someone to file a class action lawsuit against the RIAA on behalf of consumers.
It shocks me that the RIAA doesn't want you to buy CDs. Online distribution channels are a lot harder to control. Any schmo can get web hosting space and start proving music for legal download.
Andy
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
Copyright infringement occurs only when you reproduce another's intellectual property for economic gain. The classic example is when you download free music from a peer-to-peer, or copy a friend's CD so you don't have to buy your own. Basically, if you acquire the music without paying for it originally, then you're infringing. Whether one think's "sticking it to the man" is the morally right thing to do really is not relevant. There are many things which are legal which aren't moral, and vice versa. However, in a nation presumably governed by the rule of law, we are obliged to follow the law to the best of our ability. Don't like it, work for a change in the law via legal means.
I have to say that there are some on Slashdot who figure that because the industry makes too much money, or because they complain of piracy, that it's okay to become a pirate by illegally acquiring music. This is Robin Hood mentality, IMO.
Conversely, if I buy a copy of a CD, then I can do whatever I like with the contents therein. I can barbeque it, chop it, saute it, rip it, make a tape copy. That is "Fair Use," which is reproducing copies for non-economic gain. And, making a copy to give to a friend does not qualify. Buying the music and making a reasonable backup is legitimate, IMO.
Before we go tilting after the windmill of the RIAA, we should first get our house in order.
And, for those who complain that the entertainment industry has too much influence over government, try this two-edged sword approach. First, give up any entertainment expenses--get rid of cable, stop buying music (without stealing), and don't go to any more movies (watch what comes on the antenna). That will cut their revenue. Second, the money that you save by these expense cuts should be put into a common kitty to hire your own lobbyists. If several hundred thousand or a few million people do this, then the anti-entertainment lobby group will have the resources to put the entertainment industry in retreat. Fight fire with fire. Stop bitching "one dollar, one vote," and put your money where your mouth is.
If you want change in the system, you have to do so according to the system. The only other alternative is revolution, which is a little extreme for cheaper access to Prince and the Revolution, or the Matrix Trilogy.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
From the RIAA's DMCA filing, pages 31 and 32: "The Register was right in 2003 to be "skeptical" of the merits of any fair use analysis that asserts that space shifting or format shifting is a non-infringing use. This is particularly the case in today's market, where inexpensive digital copies of most types of works are readily available, and increasingly can be obtained through online download services. ... In such a market, the inconvenience that faces consumers of works tethered to specific devices is far outweighed by the threat to enjoyment of copyright posed by illegal distrobution faced by copyright owners."
Wow! In one paragraph, the RIAA lawyer goes from a private citizen in his own home, making a personal copy of a work to change its' technical form to distributing that copy. What an amazing conclusion, that every person copying a CD has the intent to distribute! Furthermore, it seems when the record companies are before the courts that they sing a totally different tune. Now I know that big organizations have the "left hand doesn't know what right hand does" thing going on, but when your own lawyers can't remember what they said to this or that court then you have a real problem.
SCO has this problem too -- they can't remember who they told what, when, and it's starting to be a problem for them, since IBM and Groklaw do remember. Hmm, maybe us "anti-DMCA" activists need a blog for news and shove all the RIAA's contradictory statements onto it.Do you like Japanese imports?
The US music industry has never been able to see beyond its next cheque, and has never believed that music is anything more than a tangible product - sheet music, shellac, vinyl or CDs. If you can't hold it in your hand, then it can't be real. It believed that about radio in the 1930s, about home taping in the 1970s and I still can't believe that it's still on the same tack in 2006, when downloading music, both legally and illegally, has been a fact of online life for years. While the dinosaurs of the industry have managed to grudgingly get on various legal download trains, they still don't get the ride, because the bottom line is shown as pennies per track rather than dollars per CD. How long can it be before the RIAA stops reflecting the opinion of the majority of its members, and will it change then?
It's all well and good complaining when the RIAA start doing things like this, and it's great to inform your friends, to donate to the EFF or contact your Representative (or MP), but if we still buy music from RIAA members, we are in danger of sending mixed signals.
There is a world of great music out there that is NOT published by RIAA members, including many independent labels that really support artists and treat them with more respect than industry heavy-hitters who - despite their protests to the contrary - really only care about their bottom-line.
Compare, for example, independent music retailers, such as bleep who allow unlimited backups (for your own personal use, of course) of their non-DRM MP3 files with today's announcement from on high by the RIAA to see that there really IS a viable alternative to the dominance of the RIAA/BPI and similar organisations - but it will only ever become a true success if we put our money where our mouths are and stop supporting the RIAA.
the RIAA would like us to buy a new CD, when we change listening device. Very logical ..
ain't gonna happen.
As the pressure from the industry gets more and more intense programmers, hackers, cryptology experts, and an entire armada of geeks will usher in an era of feasable and user friendly anonymous P2P to share music as people please.
Drive the knife deeper, kill fair use, kill your customer's confidence. Push them underground. Make them stronger.
It's true, most people will sit down and take it, they will buy their RIAA licenced "music" and sit back listening to whatever's at number one, but more and more people will splinter, because in the end, the RIAA can't win. They need us to survive, but we in no way need them.
Biting the hand that feeds you?
``Ragnarok
Why is that so far fetched? You went along with it for software and they're using the same basic talking points. It'll cut down on piracy and everyone will enjoy lower prices on music. And if you believe that I have a bridge in San Francisco you can buy cheap. MSFT increased their prices in the wake of product activation, so will the music industry.
And while RIAA's running the propaganda campaign in the media they're quietly sinking millions into lobbying efforts to get the few in Congress they don't already own, like Orin Hatch, to go along with what they want.
You put up with it in software, you voted for the people selling you out to corporate lobbyists. I realize this will be an unpopular point, but you get what you tolerate.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You want to listen to your CD? That's surely not 'fair use'. Remember, you've only a licence to play the CD. If you want to listen to it, why don't you just buy an additional licence? It comes at affordable prices, so we do not see why you should listen to the music when you have only a license to play it.
Trust me, I work for the government.
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use." (House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992)
See Audio Home Recording Act for more information.
iTunes ripped CDs have zero DRM in them. nothing. nada. iTunes *downloaded* tunes do.
A link to this story needs to be posted on every RIAA-affiliated band's message board, MySpace, PureVolume, Friendster, and Facebook site so they know what's going on.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Uhh, you realize that basically that's most likely exactly what the RIAA wants.. if you can't rip from CD to mp3 player then your only option is to go through much more tightly controlled channels like iTunes.
Time to fuck the RIAA up. They fuck us over plenty as it is. -1 Flamebait probably but I had to get that out.
I'm never buying a piece of music from the RIAA again. I'm not going to give money to companies that use it to assault my rights in court.
Vote with your dollars people.
The music distribution industry would like to make their merchandise as widely available as possible in as many formats as possible. Ideally they want each format to only play on one device and have the customer buy a separate copy for each device that they want to listen to the track on. As an added bonus the music industry will make sure that they can sell the whole album/collection if possible. They want this to be legally enforceable and they want someone else, preferably the government, to be the bad guy for doing it to the consumer.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
So lemme get this straight.
The RIAA says if you buy a CD changing format's isn't fair use, so no digital media players?
And Apple says it's fine to burn a few copies of the downloads you legally purchase?
This seems more a matter of consent from the copyright holders. Is the RIAA all of a sudden stating that all artists they represent refuse consent?
Anybody ever consider something that might get some attention....such as seeing what the /. effect has on the riaa site? http://www.riaa.com/default.asp
Neither statement is perjury, because neither statement is made under oath... These statements are just arguments made by the lawyers. One is made in a brief and the other was made in oral arguments in a completely different case, with different parties.
As a lawyer, I can say whatever I want to a court, and the court knows that. If I make a bold statement that turns out to be false, it may affect my credibility with the court; it may cause me to be found in contempt of court; it may ruin my reputation and cause me to hang my head in shame... but it ain't perjury.
Realize also, that these are statements of what the lawyer believes the law to be. They aren't statements of "this happened" or "that happened". It's the same as when the Independent Counsel asked Clinton "Is it true or not that you are the highest law enforcement officer in the country?" It's a question of legal opinion, and not a factual matter, so it isn't perjury.
Now, when you get sworn in and you say "I didn't have sex with that woman (koala bear) (llama) (whatever the case may be)." That would be perjury.
I understand inflation, but I also know that the cost of manufacturing CDs has dropped considerably in the last ten years, not to mention that record companies for the most part no longer produce anything other than CDs since cassettes and vinyl have (except in some niche areas) gone by the wayside. So CD sales have increased exponentially in the last decade as CD players have become ubiquitous.
This is no more than collusive price gouging by the recording industry. This is what Congress really should be investigating. Break up the cartel!! This has to violate some kind of antitrust or RICO laws. I can't believe that an industry can collude to set artificially high prices like this and get away with it!
I'm their target audience - I actually bought my music collection, which is somewhere over 1500 cd's, not to mention my small vinyl collection and cassettes from my youth. Also, I (was) a regular buyer from iTunes. My collection of *legitimately* purchased music is large enough that it doesn't fit on any available iPod. Yet because of all of this crap, I have stopped buying any music that is from an RIAA-affiliated label, and I have to imagine that others have done the same. It is obscene to say to me that I can't backup the collection I paid some $20,000-$25,000 on over the past 15+ years. They are nauseating, greedy, evil corporate whores.
:)
Vent vent vent...
-jake.
When you buy a CD, you're buying the physical disc. But that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You can't do anything that infringes the copyright of the artist. Which, according to the RIAA, now includes ripping the CD for personal use.
From what the RIAA is saying right now, it's like buying a printer. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the printer. You still can't print out counterfeit currency. And if the printer breaks (assuming you didn't buy the "Product Service Plan"), you're shit out of luck and have to buy a replacement at a reasonable price.
Enough with the complaining about this stuff already. What should/can we do to stop the RIAA in its tracks? I think it is truly a time for action and not just bitching about it over and over again in online communities.
Cheesy Movie Night
dont they realize that this push towards online sales is going to kill them... when you buy a CD you get about 2 or 3 good songs and the rest is crap, yet you still pay $20 for it. when you download from itunes or whatever you have the ability to purchase only the songs you want (maybe $3 for the 3 good songs). so if i were me i'd never buy a CD again, i'd just download the songs i want for 1/4 of the cost. better for me and less $$ for them
Is that not all of us are earning $200,000 a year to come up with claptrap like this like some of the morons at the RIAA are. Most normal people earn modest salaries, don't have expense accounts, and do have mortgages, bills, loans and children to look after and other interests to pursue.
I consider CD's to be a fairly expensive item - certainly not expensive enough to prevent me from buying the albums I really want but expensive enough to stop me from just spotting a CD by an artist i've heard of and buying it outright unless it is reduced / in the sales.
The greed of corporations seems to know no bounds and I just can't believe that things have been allowed to progress so far into a situation where consumer rights are just being trampled into tiny little pieces and no-one does anything about it.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
I'm a fairly fair person. Treat me fairly, I treat you fairly.
Is it fair to prevent me from enjoying my right of "fair use" by installing copy protection mechanisms that keep me from doing what I legally could do, but can't because I may not circumvent copyright protections?
Is it fair to still charge a "copyright fee" on CD-Rs that I can ONLY use for writing content that I do have the copyright for anymore because of the forementioned copy protection mechanisms?
Is it fair to install rootkits on my computer, without asking or at least informing me, without giving me the ability to get rid of them even if I cease using the product it came with?
Is it fair to dictate what devices I can use to play the music I license?
Is it fair to prevent me from copying content I do have the copyright of because the same copying mechanism could be used to copy content belonging to someone else?
Is it fair to put pressure on politicians to tip the balance between producers and consumers more and more in the producers favor?
Is it fair to assume that I don't give a rat's rear what someone treating me like that considers "fair"?
Which question do you think would deserve a "yes" as an answer?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
From TFA:""The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
They said this in front of the Supreme Court. Legally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I really do think the age of the record company is coming to an end, I would think in 10 years time the concept of buying a small disk with music on it will seem a little bizzare. Musicians will suddenly realise that publishing an album purely on the net means a record company is redundant and thus more $$$ directly for them. I think sites like iTunes will eventually turn into music brokers, dealing directly with the artists. For the bigger artists, promotional activities will just be down to a marketing company, not a record company as such. Anyway, thats my 2 cents, what do i know....
I don't see how this is a problem. Anyone who actually buys the crap that RIAA affiliates push out deserves not to have fair use rights.
People need to realise that the RIAA only have juristiction over content which they own.
People riping CD's are not the ones out there shairing music.
They want to sell CD's but more and more people are using MP3 players. Some people like to still have the disk but rip to MP3. Make that illeagle and sales go down even more.
My current anwser allofmp3.com
If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.
Source
I'm so glad we have the RIAA around to interpret the law in a fair and unbiased fashion. Otherwise we'd have to depend upon the courts and those nasty judge people.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
At what point do these people start insisting that you pay each time you listen. And if you happen to remember the tune and it plays over in your head, you get charged for that too!
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. The argument they present does open the door for them to create a product that plays once and then disintegrates.
Either you buy a song and have the right to listen to it forever, or you have to pay for a limited number of listens. The RIAA is trying to reduce that limited number to the lowest number they possibly can.
Read any good sonnets lately?
The message I take away from this is that the RIAA is saying DON'T buy CDs with DRM. Buy the music from a service that allows copying.
Message Recieved, I'll never by another DRM encumbered CD. Now if they would just mark that on the packaging of the CD instead of hiding it, I will be in good shape.
Anyone noticed the iTunes DRM noose tightening? iTunes won't burn SDII files to CD anymore, and it won't import CD audio burned on another iTunes computer. The number of times you can burn a playlist is dropping, and it won't tell you if it won't burn a playlist, it just burns a disc with no audio.
I say lets all ask permission. We start writing a letter for every CD we own, asking for permission to format-shift it for digital players. After a few million letters in their mailbox, and a few million emails I think they might just backdown. Hell, they would have to create a new division and hire a load of new people just to open all the damn letters.
And what if we must send letters to the actual artists? Then we do that as well, maybe then the Artists themselves will see what a bunch of greedy mornons the RIAA is.
Just my 2 cents.
I should think the RIAA may be correct from a legal perspective, though I doubt it is cut-and-dried. There's a powerful "fair use" argument that says, if you buy a CD you can expect to be able to play it, and that "play" in today's world implies ripping to PC or MP3 player. I was interested in Robert Fripp's (he of King Crimson fame) DGM Live download store which offers uncompressed, unprotected downloads for purchase. When I blogged about this and questioned exactly what I was purchasing, I got an answer first from the DGM Live programmer and then (indirectly) from Fripp himself. He said, ""...in response to Tim's I sort-of assume that I can make reasonable personal use of the downloads the quick answer is yes. The longer answer is act rightly..." I very much like the DGM Live model and would like to see it widely adopted. My worries would be first, that its legal basis is all rather vague; second, that it would be abused too widely to make commercial sense outside the progressive-old-fart niche; and third, that the industry just won't be willing to risk it.
I'm glad that the RIAA has made these statements. Before when their arguement for stronger copywrite protection was "Look at what Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are doing", they had an arguement that the politicians/judges could be sympathetic to. Now if their arguement is "Fair use; people don't need no stinking fair use," I don't think the politicians and judges are going to be as sympathetic. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't still get their way, but at least it's a lot easier to argue against them.
Unfortunately, unlike you (if you are actually going to do what you claim) I don't think too many people care enough to do anything about it.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
because they now a very dark future is upon them.
You are so right, my rights-oppressed friend. But *AAs are culpable for buying the laws; Congress is culpable for selling them.
Both should be punished severely, and I'm not talking swatted across the bare backside by Mistress Trish in her beautiful leather attire, either. I'm talking Smite.
I hate the business of politics.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Its only a matter of time until the RIAA sues them for facilitating the copywrite infringement through their Import feature.
"...replacements are readily available at affordable prices..."
In other words, because the RIAA thinks CD prices are "affordable," consumers should be forced to repurchase music, thereby further adding to the industry's profits, instead of being able to protect and preserve the investment the consumer made by making backup copies for personal use. This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
When you buy a piece of real estate, contrary to popular belief, you are not buying the actual land - you are buying a bundle of rights to use the land. Your ownership of that bundle of rights is evidenced by a deed. If you lose the physical deed, you don't have to buy the real estate again - you GET A COPY of the deed from the local registry of deeds. Here, when a consumer has damaged media, the consumer, in my humble opinion as an intellectual property lawyer, HAS EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE TO SIMPLY REPLACE THE MEDIA WITH A BACKUP COPY.
In fact, I would go so far as to take the position that forcing consumers to repurchase music is a misuse of the copyright associated with the piece of music involved.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
This is the only valid email address on the RIAA website. I liked reading this article as much as it pisses me off. I think if we all took the same effort as we did in this forum to email the RIAA ( mailto:webmaster@riaa.com ), I'm not saying they would listen but maybe they would be as equally pissed off. On the side of the discussion that points out the ignorance and gall of the RIAA, if rock stars are starving artists then why do they have shows like Cribs. Please don't sue me for the use of that name. Why do we see musicians kids with $40,000 necklaces laced with diamonds. It's all just smoke and mirrors. They're trying to play both sides of the coin by saying they're starving artists to the courts but showing us that we can't have what they have because they've got more money then us.
It's not about the musicians. It never has been; I'm just glad they finally gave up the pretense that it is. This is about them making as much money as possible. As long as it is easy for people to get and listen to music, the RIAA members cannot make the most money possible. (Really, I think they could, just like the movie industry started making more money after the advent of VCRs.)
With things that are easily copied, like data and ideas, the only way to make money is by locking up the access to the ideas and data. By controlling the access, they control how much money they'll make, and (more importantly) *which* ideas and data are accessed.
If you want this to be about you, start looking for a download-friendly, musician-friendly label, one that isn't part of the RIAA cartel. Or, start producing yourself.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I have a bunch of music I treasure that is NOT availiable on CD, and is NOT readily availiable, or availiable at all, on CD any more. RIAA is just so full of crap that they rot the floor behind them wherever they go.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
He's not missing the point. What he does is that he refuses to take corporate fud as law.
We buy the CDs. If they break, we have to buy new ones. By that logic we aren't buying a priviledge or a licence. We buy the CD. It's ours. The fact that someone else has the copyright for that CD means nada in this context.
Our CDs. Ours to do as we please with, unless we break copyright law. Backups is fair use. Just because this asshat doesn't like it that way (now that backing CDs up is trivial and inexpensive) doesn't make it so.
You are a tool.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Okay, so here's the new plan: 1. Create a non-profit organization to lobby congress for improved rights for consumers. 2. Get a complete list of every senator and congressman. 3. Use government grant money / public funds to purchase an iPod and 25 music downloads for every congressman and senator. 4. Watch them become addicted to their new digital freedom. 5. Observe the plethora of new laws designed to protect consumers and their right to use their music as they see fit. 6. Sit back and laugh the laugh of a thousand evil geniuses... mooaahhaaahhaaa!
You're not buying the CD, you're buying the rights to play the music. Furthermore their mechanisms DO prevent you from copying CDs (unlike their argument goes). See the Sony case.
Therefore:
If you're not allowed to make your own backups then the music industry should accept that providing you have proof of original purchase they have to provide you with replacments on demand when the original gets lost, scratched or whatever.
Lets not even get into what happens if (like me) you emigrate to a different country and your whole DVD collection (hundreds) won't play anymore because of the purely artificial restriction enforced by region code.
Copyright infringement occurs only when you reproduce another's intellectual property for economic gain.
If this was true, there would never have been a SCO lawsuit. There would never have been a file sharing lawsuit, either, since the people uploading MP3s wouldn't be financially gaining from their actions (and, it follows, the people providing the services wouldn't have been supporting or encouraging an illegal activity). Copyright infringement rules say nothing whatsoever about gain.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Congress needs to ammend the copyright law to allow ANY distribution to yourself.
Although this may kill most "Software Licenses" since most of them rely on the "Distributing from the CD to your computer" (or "Distributing from the Hard Drive to the Memory") to add ungodly amounts of restrictions "over and above" copyright law.
My question is why is this such a problem? In many countries (including Canada and *shock gasp* the US) there is a levy applied to blank media. Since this is a levy (not a tax) it goes directly to a group (such as the RIAA) which then is supposed to distribute it to the artists they represent from the CD Manufacturers.
.
For Our Canadian Friends: Private Copying & The Law
Under Canada's Copyright Act, it is legal for individuals to copy recorded music for their own personal use. In exchange, there is a mechanism to compensate those with rights in that music: royalties for private copying. The royalties attach to the types of blank media that are commonly used for copying. But because technologies come and go and the value of copying can change over time, the legislation does not create a static catalogue of specific types of media on which there should be a royalty or fix royalty amounts for all time. Instead, it sets up a framework that allows for periodic review. The Act establishes legal principles and tight procedural safeguards, but gives responsibility for determining the types of media that should qualify for a private copying royalty and its amount to Canada's Copyright Board. The Copyright Board is an economic regulatory body that specializes in copyright matters. The Board's decisions are referred to as private copying tariffs
(And for the sake of coming argument)
For Our US Friends: US CODE: Title 17, 1004 Royalty Payments
(b) Digital Audio Recording Media.-- The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.
Now since that law is in place, it means that (Although CD-R's are not applicable under that code in the US at the moment) with some simple ammendments could settle this issue. You could apply a small levy (say 5 cents per song) on digital media and save everyone the headache that we're all having. I mean 5 cents a song won't kill anyone's bank account and certainly would be giving the money that is apparently being lost back to the people who are loosing it. Also since CD's aren't on the list of media that has the levy applied to it, a simple 20 cents per CD would resolve this issue as well.
Why sue when a simple ammendment would suffice, especially when it would make most (if not all) parties happy? Just money grubbing and assanine behaviour at its finest.
I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
RIAA, your time is running out fast. We can tell because your arguments are getting more and more absurd by the day. I'm sorry it has to be this way (I'm not really). We'll miss you (not really).
http://ablegray.com
Your whole point about CDs costing less than iTunes is also bunk. Nearly every album on iTunes that can be bought as an album costs quite a bit LESS than any copy I can find in the stores on CD unless they are clearencing them out.
Your DRM tin foil hat theory is disturbing.
The more the RIAA does this kind of petty crap to try to claim moneys they may or may not have gotten, the more I want to download music illegally, just out of spite. Heck, I download any Metallica song I see as a result of the Napster thing, and I don't even listen to much Metallica anymore (they've sucked donkey toes since that black album with the snake on it)
But back to my point - this is a capitalistic country (mostly, friggin gov't.. but I won't get into that here) and in such an economy the consumer can best voice displeasure with a company by no longer purchasing their goods. We, in the US, take this power too lightly.
Stop buying CDs. Tell the RIAA you don't like their business practices by reducing their bottom line.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
No matter what the RIAA thinks, ripping/encoding your own music that you don't ever share is fair use.
Current reinterpretations of laws are bogus and are only used by corporations that are failing and are trying to save their way of business by scaring customers and by excessive greed. Ignore them and continue doing what is right by classic Fair Use laws. Break the DMCA if you must, for this, too, is an unjust law that hinders classic fair use.
I'm not a lawyer; I don't have to be. Lawyers are going to side with their rich, greedy clients. It's time for individuals to take back their rights in this country, and we have to break these stupid and unjust "laws" to do so.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, no matter how many "rights" RIAA (or MPAA) "sell" you, they reserve the right to screw you down the line. DRM = Deceptive Restrictive Media = Death to Real Music.
If the music mafia is posturing to sue me or arrest me for using a right they agreed I had when I bought my CDs, then I think it's time for another class action lawsuit or boycott. They can give me my money back now -- all of it -- and have my precious CDs.
This from the folks who complained that their industry was hurt by second hand CD trading and wanted to put an end to that.
The only thing I think the RIAA deserves is for the artists to bypass the industry they protect. The RIAA is only an organization...one that requires members.
Here is an idea, how about an organization of artists that fights the publishers for fair royalties and ownership rights to the music they created. One that has a substantial online distribution/payment network, and one that denounces the RIAA and goes up against them on capital hill. I'm sure artists would be willing to support that. Someone with money simply need to make it happen.
As we chatted and he posed for photos and signed the CD insert of one of his latest albums, I told him that I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't downloaded it first. He told me it was fine and that he downloads music all the time too. He said that if I had to download music to discover whether I liked it or not then I should go ahead. After all, I'd just proven to him (by handing him the insert to sign) that if I do llike it then I will buy it.
Piracy is and a problem and it is a major hassle for them, and it is causing them to lose money through mass copyright infringement. Further, their point here is not that it isn't "fair use", they're not even discussing fair use, they are talking about exceptions to the DMCA. The DMCA is additional legislation that criminalizes (among other things) the circumvention of copy protection. Fair Use is a case-by-case doctrine in which copyright privileges may be legally ignored for specific purposes.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
And for the owner it should be explicitly retained by the human(s) who actually created the work and only usable by corporation through a contract with said creators/owners (breech of contract, all rights return to the creator, not the company). That way if a company wants to make money from thier music they actually have to pay the artist fairly during the period they wish to have that right.
(should be same for other "Intelectual Property" too)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Isn't a CD just a container for PCM WAV files? Isn't a CD player a type of computer? Next, you are allowed to backup hard drives. You are allowed to compress hard drives. They contain software and other protected media, don't they? Why would it follow that we could not back up a CD and even compress it? Most software is okay to install on one computer at a time. My CD's are in storage once I rip them. The ripped songs all fit on my Archos. I listen to them thru that in my car, thru headphones, or attache via USB to any PC and listen there. What is the problem?
What is your stand on MP3?
This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. (emphasis mine)
There is currently an antitrust suit filed against Apple alleging that Apple has monopolized the markets for online music distribution and for portable mp3 players by making songs downloaded from iTMS only compatible with iPod. If the RIAA's Fair Use argument is upheld, then Apple's defenses in its antitrust litigation would be significantly narrowed. Without the ability to rip CDs to use on the iPod, the iTMS' market share is greatly increased. Thus, the RIAA's position is well-timed to injure Apple. Maybe this is an unintended result by RIAA, though. I can't see why the RIAA would want Apple to have to do away with its DRM.
... the backup copy of that stromboli I had last night.
I do think the RIAA's argument, if successful, will be the death of CDs. How often do you see somebody carrying a portable CD player? Occasionally, but my guess is they've usually got mixed CDs anyway. Nobody wants to listen to one band for an hour any more, and they don't want to have to switch CD's and hunt down the next track they want to listen to.
Portable music players are also becoming increasingly popular as home music players. My iPod hooks up to a set of speakers and plays my music in my house, my car, or anywhere else I can plug it in. As Apple pointed out in a marketing scheme a while back, the iPod (or other portable music devices, if you're not apple's marketing team) is the easiest way to carry around a ton of music. Nobody wants to carry around 60+ CD's to compensate for an iPod filled less than 20% to capacity.
And of course if the RIAA succeeds in making this the norm, CD sales will plummet, and they'll blame it on piartes, rather than their own stupidity.
I'd be interested to see what their profit margins look like with online music services as opposed to CDs. This article pretty much confirms what I've been thinking for a while. I'm thinking that CDs are going to become the bastard child to the RIAA. They have to purchase materials to stamp, pay the people to stamp the CDs, reproduce the artwork and lyrics (if applicable), ship the things, and then I'm sure they worry that people sell them to others which further cuts into potential profits.
[sarcasm]Shame on you for backing up your music! How DARE YOU! It's only $10 (if you're lucky).[/sarcasm]
They obviously expect people to misunderstand the concept of multiplication.
Grrrr...
I'm here to tell you the solution is to buy *more* music...
...from non-RIAA member, independent labels. There are indie labels out there for nearly every genre. They tend to treat their artists more fairly and nearly every indie label respects their customers and treats them like... well, customers instead of cattle or criminals.
I could give you a million positive experiences I've had with indie labels, but I don't want to waste too much time on an RIAA post. A really great summary example is that I've never IM'ed with a major label owner about how I included their music on a compilation for my friends and had the major label be excited that I was helping to promote their bands and label.
The best way to piss off the RIAA isn't to pirate their music or simply stop buying it. The best way to piss them off is to shift the market by taking your patronage and your money to non-RIAA indies.
If I grow and sell watermelons, I can sell them with following stipulations:
1)Only the purchaser may eat of the fruit. He may not share it.
2)The purchaser may not save any uneaten portion for future consumption.
3)The seeds may not be used to grow additional watermelons.
RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of ignorant f*cks. Do they even realize how ridiculous they sound? So, to summarize:
1)it's ok to make a back-up copy of the cd/dvd...as long as it is another cd
2)copy protection will be included on cd/dvd media to prevent #1
3)You may not use alternate media to make a backup
4)You may not circumvent copy protection to achieve #1
5)We will change these terms at will and lobby the government to enact laws to enforce these terms
6)If you do what we tell you not to do, or anything we happen to forget and think you shouldn't be doing, we will sue you and the government will support us and make you pay whatever dollar amount we ask for, even though we suffered no monetary damage because you copied a song to your iPod.
This is exactly why the government needs to keep it's nose out of private sector business.
So here is my situation. I'm a law abiding citizen, I don't download music from p2p apps, or copy it from friends and I don't share the music that I purchase. I purchase the CD myself rather than buy it on iTunes because I like to have a physical copy in the event of catastrophic data loss. I then copy it onto my iPod so I can take all my music with me on the subway to work. At that point the CD goes into a box in a safe place and is never used again unless I soemhow lose the data on my computer. I'm still only using one instance of these songs.
According to the RIAA in order for me to continue to behave as a law abiding citizen and not a "pirate" I must either:
1. Repurchase the 2,412 songs on my iPod from a digital music source for a $1 a piece which any math wizard can sum up be $2,412 I'd have to pay to legally listen to songs I already paid probalby more than that for already.
2. Carry around a portable cd player (which is bulky and can skip quite badly on a bumpy subway car)and a backpack of the 160 CDs that I own, increasing the likley hood of damaging them to the point of unplayabilty and increasing the risk of them getting lost or stolen. In the event that they are damaged or stolen I must repurchase them for a "resonable" price if I want to listen to them again. Average cd costs are about $16 an album now so that means 160 CDs X $16 = $2,560.
Either solution has me potentially paying around $2,500 to listen to the songs that I have already paid roughly $2,500 for in the first place. Yeah that's fair....in pretend land.
Why mend, when you can spend. Why mend, when you can spend. Why mend, when you can spend. Why mend, when you can spend.
I am aghast that you guys want to reuse things, save resources, and such. Was there alcohol in all of your blood surrogate? Can't you see that you aren't being a contributing member of society with all of your unorthodox anti-consumerism. For Ford's sake, take a gram and spend. If you continue on with all this nonsense, you will all have to be extridited to Iceland where you will not be able to influence society.
In Our Ford,
DHC Jon
... I might as well go back to pirating. If both are illegal, why would I want to pay $10-15 once to still "break the law" when downloading and "breaking the law" is free?
Couldn't agree more. The evil, baby-eating scum at the RIAA need to decide, are they selling intellectual property or physical property? If it's intellectual, then I should never have to purchase my music again --in fact, they can give me fresh MP3s of all the stupid cassettes and 8-tracks I bought as a kid! If it's physical, then I guess they're losing nothing when I download a song without paying them.
Ask me about my sig!
I haven't yet bought an MP3 online and I don't plan to. I'd much rather buy a CD where I have something physical that I can hold onto for years. I make MP3s from it, allowing me to listen, conveniently, to all my music at work or on my iPod. I don't have to put any wear on the CD either by playing it or carrying it around everywhere, but I've always got the CD on hand if I do want to pop it into a CD player. And I don't have the hassle of having to back up MP3s, if it's even possible with they way their use is restricted.
I made the copies for my own convenience. I almost never copy anything for anyone else and if I get my hands on some MP3s I really like I go online and order the CD.
But then I don't listen to popular music at all; anything close to mainstream I completely avoid. And after years of buying CDs and occassionally ending up with crap, I no go out of my way to ensure that at least half the music on the CD I enjoy. So far I haven't really encountered any copy-protection nonsense, but we'll see how long that lasts.
Of course, the more I see this sort of bullshit from the RIAA the less I want to buy music. Why should I have to buy multiple copies of the same music? It's simply about convenience. I've got a PC, cd player at home and in my car, and an mp3 player. Why shouldn't I be able to transfer my music amongst all these platforms?
Every time some new technology is developed people talk like it's going to be a great enabler. It's going to make things easier for everyone, without any of the hassles we've dealt with in the past. Until the scumbags show up, suddenly everything we use is crippled, hindered by absurd licensing agreements, restrictive contracts and all kinds of ridiculous fees and charges that border on extortion. If there's any way to make a few extra cents these companies will figure out how to do it. Kind of like the mobile phone industry in the US.
The RIAA can go to hell for all I care. Unfortunately, by trying to screw the music industry, it's not the executives who feel it, it's all the regular people like the rest of us who feel the consequences. Regardless, something needs to be done about this sort of garbage.
All the cds I own are from fake BMG subscripions. Remember the
20 cd's for 1 penny? Except they used sneaky business practices
to force people to buy cd's they didn't even want by sending the
cd's putting the onus on the consumer to return them.
How many people were screwed up over this system?
Once someone completed the obligation of buying cd's
as per their subscription, BMG would continue to send cd's
until the subscriber wrote them to stop, sometimes it took
multiple letters.
This worked well for me because they kept sending me free cd's.
Therefore,
Does copying them constitute 'fair use'?
Or do all the licenses for this music belong to someone else?
Paying for music is, in all essences, essentially evil. Until the RIAA
understands this, they will continue to wage their jihad against America
and you.
If you don't like it, write your local Congressman, point him at this story and tell him that you like your ipod and copyright issues are high on your priority list when you're considering who to vote for in the next election. Also don't buy CDs that benefit the RIAA. Go browse the International section of your local music store. Chances are you can find a lot of independent artists in there whose music is new and interesting and which cost half to a quarter what the latest RIAA produced crap does.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If they had their way, CDs would be copy protected and require a CD key to play (a la Windows or PC game keys), would require an internet or modem connection to phone home on each play (like Steam), and would occasionally be completely unavailable to play due to server problems..
They would completely have no problem with forcing this upon the customer. When confronted, they would shrug and say that it allows them to serve their customers better. By the way, if you buy the 'Special Edition' CD, its authorizations are listed on a different server that doesn't go down quite as often.
And if you play the CD in another computer, the key is invalidated and you must purchase a new one.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
"Nobody wants to listen to one band for an hour any more, and they don't want to have to switch CD's and hunt down the next track they want to listen to."
That's a pretty said statement. I'm not attacking you for saying it, it's true for the majority of people, it's this truth that is sad. The iPod has pretty much been the last nail in the coffin for albums. People just want singles on shuffle. I have my entire music collection (all CDs I've legally purchased and then ripped) on my iPod and 9 times out of 10 I select a single album and listen straight through it. When I drive, I pop an original CD into my CD player and listen to that straight through. I can't even fathom the amount of music I would have missed if I stuck to just the radio and singles.
Would someone please just tell the RIAA to stfu already. Geez. Enough is Enough! Telling me what I can and can't do with something I purchased is just asnine.
.... radioactive mutant music no longer clear on what 'Buying' you actually buys it.
.. in Australia.
Yet, when you buy a Sony Playstation it's still region locked to 4.
I'm considering buying one just so I can make a million by being the first person to snarf them on this point (after the first case was one, admittedly).
And have nowhere to turn.
They've sued their customer base.
They've spent millions on ineffective marketing campaigns.
They've pushed labels to cookie-cutter their music and bands.
Now they wonder how they're going to raise profits?
If they move forward with restricting our right to backup a flimsy media so that we can listen to the music that we've purchased the right to listen to, then we the community need to fire back.
ie - counter-sue the RIAA/MPAA on the grounds that we pay money for a product that is INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.
They produce a products that are brittle, easy to break. They produce products which require a scratch free surface to play properly, yet the products are made of a material that scratches almost by air flowing over it. They produce products which illegally extend copyright, by making the encryption never ending.
I'd say there's enough there to start a massive world-wide class-action lawsuit and force them to refine their product, at no additional cost to us, so that they are scratch resistant, and have an encryption method that turns itself off after the legal copyright limit.
If they cannot do that, then they'll have to retract their position, and allow us to make backups of their defective products.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Hah! I have a ton of CDs that are no longer "in print". I've made copies to protect my investment since RIAA members no longer see enough profit to continue making these older CDs available to me any more.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
the RIAA is just confused on how to handle what technology has done to the provision and accessibility of music. Take this scenerio: I buy a 1GB ipod, and then download a lot of music I like from itunes. When my ipod gets full and I want to download more music, what do i do? Simple, i transfer then files to my computer and or copy it to cd.
I'm getting the sense here that the RIAA and the online downloadable music companies which are going to be their major source of future revenue are running at cross-purposes here.
The downloadable music companies like Apple have always tried to argue that deep down we knew there was something "wrong" with using the illegal download services... that it was not just marginally illegal, but immoral. The RIAA's ever broadening definition of what violates their copyright keeps cheapening that concept.
To be honest with you, once affordable legal downloads became available I started switching over to them for convenience sake, and also for the added bonus of not being in violation of any laws. But now the RIAA comes along and says "guess what, that Culture Club CD you bought 10 years ago and ripped onto your hard drive because you don't own any audio CD players anymore... that was a crime". Well, at this point I'm breaking the law anyhow. So my choice is to either shell out a few grand to replace ever cassette tape and CD I ever bought with iTunes, or to keep playing the ripped, but legally owned stuff, knowing that the RIAA is still going to bitch.
But you know what? This probably does have an effect on how I'm going to buy music in the future. If the RIAA is going to argue that downloading a bunch of Bjork songs off a P2P service is the legal equivalent to going to Best Buy and buying the CDs and ripping them to my hard drive... there's no good reason for me to shell out the money anymore, is there?
If you can't listen to music anymore without being a criminal, then why pay for the priviledge?
we've learned that rioting is more likely to produce results than boycotting.
BTW, does the RIAA have a flag we can burn?
US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, 117:
Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Rather than having third party DRM forced on a person, maybe they should just embed a Serial number tag within each song on a CD. Any and/or all audio formats can be updated to support a special comment tag that contains a serial number which would have to be made illegal to tamper with. Each CD then would have its own serial number to identify that CD.
When the CD is sold, a person would have to provide information about themselves (the government would have to decide how much enformation would be required) and a record about serial number and buyer would be created. Then if illegal copies appear online, the record companies could then just check to see what the serial number is within the song and track down the person that uploaded it comparing serial number and the IP address of the person that uploaded the song.
Fair use wouldn't be touched as long as it was used for personal use and anyone illegaly uploading a song could be tracked.
Only downside would be a friend that uploads a song from a CD he/she borrowed from you or someone tampered with the serial number tag. Hopefully comparing serial number tag and IP address from the uploader would provide information enough for a good investigation to proceed before they just accuse someone of illegally uploading.
A CD could also contain a form that can be used and mailed in if you ever wanted to resell the CD.
I can appreciate some restrictions on use of copyright material, but they want too much control over products we pay inflated prices for. They say we are hurting the artist, but what really hurts the artist are the draconian and deceptive contracts the artists have to work under. You can have a Platinum recording and end up in debt to the record company because they shift the financial risks to the artist and assume none for themselves. Many of your favorite artist barely make a living wage even though they are generating millions for their labels.
Ask Toni Braxton. She made millions for her record company and ended up being in debt to her label.
photosMy Photostream
As I understand it, you could legitimately do either, but not both. If you make a copy for personal use, that limits what you can do with the original or copy. If you did both, then the copy is no longer a fair use copy. If you did both, there would be no legal difference between you and a "pirate" who makes thousands of copies for sale.
Another thing to consider with ripping a copy, is that playing both your copies at once is likely infringement. Consider that Dad has a CD or some classic rocker that's come back in vouge. Jr. rips that to is iPod. Possibly OK, unless Dad's playing the CD. It's not OK if Jr. moves out (unless he "liberates" the CD from Dad).
IANAL, but I do read Groklaw occasionally. YMMV.
when you pry it from cold, dead fingers, Jack. In a world where the best music is on used, imported $30 CDs, you're frickin' right that I'm going MP3s every one of them. You want to steal my VCR, too?
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
The CD sale is covered by the Principle of First Sale. The RIAA appears to be attempting to rewrite the law by one-sided argument.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This is Good News! The iPod (and other music players) are very popular with the public. This stance of the RIAA telling people that they can't copy their CDs to it will only bring to the public light how crazy their position on digital rights truly is.
I'd love to see the first law suit filed against somebody because they copied their legally purchased CD collection to their iPod. There would be such a backlash against the music industry that congress would very likely be pushed to overturn the DMCA.
I'm going to be honest here, nothing would make me happier than for the RIAA to hire someone who comes up with an absolutely foolproof copy protection mechanism that totally and completely prevents backing up CDs, and whatever other copyright protections they want to build in. Let the entire industry adopt that copy protection scheme. Nothing will kill their CD game faster than giving them exactly what they want. Let them put the product they want on the market, and people will flock, in droves, to alternatives. One of the main reasons people haven't migrated is because of ineffective copy protection that allows them to make copies and the like. Close down all the loopholes and suddenly electronic music distibution systems start looking a lot more promising. Sure, the RIAA will then start focusing more on electronic music distribution, but at that point the previous paradigm has already cracked and IMO their credibility regarding the benefits of their copy protection plans would have taken a huge hit.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
Dear RIAA,
For a long time now, you've been slowly eroding the rights of legitimate music owners in the name of "ending piracy". I respect the fact that there are individuals who avoid paying for music through illegal copying and/or downloading, and that such actions cause your members damage. However, of late your preponderance for taking away the freedoms of your members' customers while ignoring the effect this has on your sales (which you conveniently ascribe to "piracy") has made you seem a bit insane.
This morning I read about your statement that, in your opinion, I cannot legally transfer the music on CD to a portable player so that I may enjoy it in places where carrying CDs and CD players would be impractical, nor can I use a backup copy of a CD in order to protect the original from damage. I can only assume, by this statement, that you have a drug-abuse problem that has progressed to the point of destroying your capacity for rational thought.
I not be purchasing music -- on CD or in any other format -- from RIAA-member publishers until you seek the treatment you so desparately need.
Until then, fuck you all.
Regards,
Proteus.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Don't you enjoy screwing your girl? (assuming you have one)
... yeah. You've gotta be new here.
You must be
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Your honor, we at the RIAA should have final say over the uses our licensed content are put to. To allow the end user to transfer the content that WE placed into THEIR hands to another medium is simply not fair, I repeat, not fair not fairnot fairnot fairnotfairnotfairnotfairnotfairNOTFAIRWAAAAAAAAA
</riaa>
RIAA's business model is to kill the companies they are supposedly 'defending'.
People like RIAA failed to ban photocopiers,
they failed to ban cassette tapes,
they failed to ban video tape recorders,
and they will fail to ban computers.
All for this simple reason: RIAA terrorists are wrong.
Freedom is Right.
If people actually take time to waste $15 on buying a CD, they should be F'ing greatful, the scum.
To Hell with RIAA, and all the companies that sign up with them and support their terroristic activities.
I can write better music than most 'popular' music, and damn - I give all of my own songs away for free.
The stuff most of these pop idols are pushing now a days claiming
to be music wouldn't get them qualified as game show participants...
Their music sucks.
Where is the next Elvis?
The next Ludwig van Beethoven?
A whole new generation of bands are rising up, and they publish through the web, not through some parasite like SONY/BMG.
Real musicians and new bands can get their own shows going and sell their own music - and get ALL the revenue of those smaller sales.
The old guard RIAA companies are dinosaurs waiting to die. 'Pump and Dump' is the only thing to predict for their kind.
And iTunes? - Screw them too. Low resolution, low quality files sound like mush being dumped in a drum.
What happens when everybody has purchased the top 80% of their favorite tunes?
'The Big Cliff' - iTunes sales drop through the floor - suddenly the big money maker turns into yesterday's news...
Oh, and Dish Network gives their customers their own 'Video iPod' - NOW, not some time in the future.
Apple missed to boat, Dish Network won the game.
Boycott them all.
Write letters to entertainers, telling them why you boycotted their shows, their music, their products.
Good riddance.
Long live the free press!
Long Live Democracy!
Long Live Fair Use!
Down with the Terrorists against Freedom!
I'm with you on that. Personally I seldom buy singles from the iTMS, even if I think the album only has a couple of songs I want. Some of my favorite songs are the ones that I didn't know I was getting. I have a total of 0 songs on my iPod that I haven't listened to and rated. I buy full albums and force myself to listen to every song all the way through even if I decide I don't like it. Once I've listened to everything, I mix things up a bit.
If I'm just paying for a license to *use* the music, if my method of using it becomes damaged, why do I have to pay for the license to use it again? Why does it matter what method I'm using to use this music if it's CD, MP3, iTunes as long as it has been paid for?
In related news, the RIAA has announced the release of "skip-protected" CDs, which are exactly the same as normal CDs except they come with an additional license to make short-term backups by playing them in skip-protected players. These new CDs are expected to cost twice as much as traditional CDs.
I am the man with no sig!
"replacements are readily available at affordable prices" is simply false. I have been told by Columbia Records (Sony BMG) that they will not replace, at any price, a recording I acquired in 1958.
To hell with the greedy bastards. Once or twice at the trough was more than enough -- no more.
But they remain a dangerous force. They are suing people left and right. They are suing children. They are suing people who don't even own a computer. It doesn't matter if you have never uploaded a track in your life, they will sue you.
And when they do, what will you do? Pony up the 2000 bucks they ask for? Or pony up the 20,000+ in legal fees to defend yourself from their unlawful suit? With a computer full of ripped tracks, no less...
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to listen to OUR material in the ways WE see fit, according to "historical usage," however WE define it.
You have the right to pay us over and over again for the same music.
You have the right to simply send us money, if you wish.
If you waive, exceed, or ignore these rights, you WILL be sued, whenever we get around to you.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So I buy my favourite SONY label music artist's CD.
I then buy a Sony Vaio PC.
I then buy a Sony CDR Burner.
I then buy a Sony CD-R AUDIO 50 pack.
I then use my Sony Vaio to make a backup of my Sony Music CD with my Sony CDR Burner onto a Sony CDR AUDIO cd which I then play in my Sony Car Radio.
And now they say I'm not allowed to do this? They ENCOURAGE it. They give us all of the tools to do it. Hell they even make those bullshit "audio" CDRs for it.
The EFF should just walk into the court room with all of the above "devices" and submit them as evidence.
Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.
Tried that. Doesn't work. My T2 DVD was poorly manufactured and when I snapped it onto the hub holder in my computer's optical drive tray, it cracked the DVD's hub in three directions, all the way into the media. They refused to replace it, told me to go buy another one. A friend of mine has a huge CD collection, and a number of them got scratched up when he dumped his motorcycle. He was unable to get a single one replaced, ended up having to buy replacements.
Getting replacement CDs and DVDs is about as futile as trying to get replacement software CDs before the age of registration codes. I lost a floppy once and had to mail in my user's manual before they'd send me a copy of the disk. In my first mailing to them I sent a polaroid of the FOURTEEN other install disks of their software titles that I also owned. They didn't care, they wanted to have the manual in their hands before they'd replace the disk.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Currency as physical property is a piece of paper with text on it. The reason you cannot copy it is that the government holds the intellectual property rights to it. If you physically stole currency from a bank vault, that would be theft of physical property. If you counterfeit currency, that's not physical theft.
Hard currency (e.g. silver coins) is another matter, and in that case it is real physical property with inherent value, but that's a very small proportion of currency these days.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Does that mean I shouldn't have homeowners insurance since houses are readily available at a convenient price? It is the same thing on a different scale.
Whoa whoa whoa... 19th century business model in 1910 when the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit their walnut-sized brains!???!?!?! OMGWTFBBQ! Oh yeah, and mammals=Henry Ford????
Ok. Even though the RIAA is completely contradicting themselves, I'll even concede that maybe they are correct in their assertion that ripping is technically illegal according to the DMCA (for argument's sake). Here is what I want to know then: What the &*#$ is fair use then! I don't have any problem with the music industry trying to protect their product, but I do have a problem with constantly changing rules regarding what is legal and illegal regarding fair use. For the RIAA to say to the supreme court "Yep! Ripping your CDs is perfectly fine" and then come out and try to sneak in language that says otherwise is simply unacceptable. If the RIAA and the Justice dept laid down concrete, UNCHANGING rules regarding fair use and acceptable forms of copying, I would have far less of a problem with their organization (ok, maybe not, but it sounded good). However, simply trying to change the rules when it is profitable for them is NOT ok, especially when they contradict themselves and imply that hundreds of millions of Americans are criminals for obeying stated law.
I'm going to start a new organization called the PCMAA. Playing Card Makers Association of America. And any time anyone uses a playing card symbol, a piece of my client's intellectual property, we will sue them. We need to take back the money that is rightfully due to the Playing Card Makers of America!
What's a sig?
For those of you that want to support the artists but not the RIAA, visit http://riaaradar.com/ and search for the artist.
It will show you the albums that they have and if they are produced by RIAA memebers.. I often buy CD's from artists that are not part of the RIAA and I tell the artist/labels why I do so.
That's it... I'm outraged. I'll NEVER buy another CD from any company affiliated with the RIAA!! I can't believe this!
"Seriously, this shit has got to stop. Maybe satelite radio is where it's at..." ...Where you once again indirectly help support the RIAA by listening to licensed music. Same thing for movies - soundtracks are also licensed. Go to a retail establishment where they play music - same thing there. There are any number of other ways the RIAA licenses their music.
The RIAA will not die, even if NO ONE buys a CD from this day forward. Their licensing will keep them alive as long as they can keep extending copyright laws...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying.
Off-hand, I can think of three ways to obtain music:
In my experience, method 1 works best when you are browsing around and find something you like. If, however, you go there with a particular album in mind and your tastes are not exactly mainstream, you are likely to be disappointed. Even though I have submitted requests for particular artists and albums, I have yet to see a single one fulfilled.
That leaves methods 2 and 3. To date, I have been going with 2, but the RIAA now says it is illegal to fill up my iPod with CD tracks. I suppose this doesn't apply to me directly here in Canada, but were I American, I think I might be re-evaluating my options right now...
The more I read the comments, the more I think the point is being missed. If the RIAA can succesfully put everyone off buying CDs and force them towards dowloads (DRMd or not), then the RIAA ultimatley saves themselves a fortune in pressing and distributing CDs. Consequently, they're operating costs are lower and there profits higher. They should be careful though as I have bought more CDs in the last two years while being an iPod owner than during the previous five! At the present time, I will not buy DRMd downloadable MP3s as I cannot be sure I can move the media on in the future. I went through the LP to CD transistion in 1985 (There really was no alternative available to make copies of those LPs to CD back then). Interestingly though, more recently, I have transferred the cassette tape copies of those same LPs that I still own over to MP3...hmmmm...is that illegal too, they seem to have forgotten about LPs and tapes :-P
"If it's lost, it'll turn up. Things always do" "I love it when a plan comes together"
What, you mean there's music in the stores worth buying? That won't take me an hour of careful searching and sampling to find?
Perhaps. But as Resident Evil fans will know, damage is certainly practical.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
(Yet Another RIAA Tactic Doomed To Failure)
.. well EVERYTHING, they have fought tooth and nail against every innovation which ultimately brought them more money.
You are of course aware that the RIAA has been against EVERY reprographic innovation since the invention of carbon paper.
From the invention of the player piano, to radio, to the jukebox, to xerography, to the cassette player, to the MP3, to
These Luddites are incapable of thinking of how to monetize anything. Their knee-jerk reaction is to stomp it out of existence, what ever it might be. (What do you want? They're lawyers. The only thing they can do is sue and try to get laws passed so they can sue.)
What they are waiting for is for somebody to PAY THEM NOT TO SUE. All it takes is enough money, anyone with seep enough pockets will do, and they will do what the almighty dollar says.
They have been proving their far-sightedness since the 18th century. They have opposed EVERY technological innovation, without exception. If they would have got their way, we would be playing our palor-pianos by gas light (while dying from every preventable disease from syphilis to eating spoiled meat.)
Can someone please figure out a way to make money from technology and join them (to make them provide a united front, declare 'victory' and NOT fight amongst themselves,) OR just pay them to STFU?
Bill Gates could do it single handedly. Steve Jobs did it with the iTMS. All it takes is money or a will to go around them like the podsafe music network.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Not that I'm a fan of the RIAA, but is what they are saying true? Do the arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA not list the legal precedents for making back up copies? And do they fail to provide evidence that access controls are preventing people from making back up copies?
Note that they are not saying that "there is no law that gives you permission to make back up copies" they are just saying that the arguments made by the other side don't list any laws.
If what the RIAA says is true then I support them, you can't just go in and make blanket claims in an argument to change a law, you have to back those claims up, with like evidence and stuff.
You can continue to buy CDs, just seek out artists that are not part of RIAA labels. Support real musicians, not the mass-market garbage that's force-fed to us through corporate radio and MTV.
take your old albums and convert them to CD.
riaa would probably deemed punishable by death
COLD
DEAD
FINGERS
.
They are bullies who are being aggressive and mean. The only reason they've got as far as they have (DRM, anyone?) is because we have LET THEM. (sorry for the caps, I'm just *done* with this crap.)
--
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"? ehh... not so much.
Of course, with all the recent brouhaha of it arguably not being fair use anymore, I've generally stopped buying new retail CDs. I get most new CDs directly from independent artists.
You could've hired me.
Why can't DRM tie the purchased song or movie to a particular owner? Why can't playback devices also tie themselves to the same owner? Once that is accomplished, devices can play any song or movie their owner has legally purchased. Why is this so complicated? Later CZ
This would be the court case from hell for the RIAA. Right now, extensions to copyright and such like are slashdot discussions. Want to make rootkits the 2nd news item of the day on CNN? You're going about it the right way.
Such a case would be a PR disaster. You'd start to see government taking a far more pro-consumer line on CDs, possibly bringing in all sorts of legislation like forcing media replacement or upgrade at a small fee.
They seem to think that they can have another Vinyl to CD upgrade golden time, forgetting that CD offered something more, and that spikes in an industry (like Y2K for COBOL guys) are just that. CD is about the pinnacle for most people. Most users would be better off upgrading their equipment before improving their media.
Concentrate on making better music, and maybe creating a better value proposition. I can pay for a DVD rental service for a month for less than the price of a CD.
What I really find interesting is how the RIAA seems intent on aleinating its customer base. Here they are among the most profitable of all businesses, offering artists only about 5-10% of what their creation is actually worth, and controlling prices in a way only the oil cartel seems to be able to match; yet, their attitude is one of f--- the customer. Instead of making it easy to get their product, to listen to it and encourage others to buy, they want to make it harder. Given the choice of purchasing a seperate copy for home, work, car and portable (the average album would cost around $80 in this case), I'll just switch off and enjoy the silence. Do these RIAA suits really think we can't live without this stuff? Like others here, I've already bought most of my music three or four times now (8-track, vinyl, some cassettes, and finally CD). I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for it again. I know I'm just repeating what many others have said, but I am a businessman, and I know I have to make my customers happy. To deliberately makes your customers miserable seems like they are signing their own death warrant. And by the way, when are we going to get an anti-trust investigation of the RIAA?
What evolutionary event is going to make the RIAA go the way of the dinosaur. In big business and politics,there are evolutionary changes just like in the real world. Species that need to die out cling on as long as they can, but sooner or later the tides of evolution grab them, pull them under and hopefully fosilize them for future study.
One day our great grand children will dig up the bones of the RIAA and exclaim, "look mom! I found a copy of physical music. Did people really used to only get their music printed on these things?"
Laws of evolutionary survival 101.. adapt or die. The RIAA has proven yet again that they have no desire to adapt.
I cannot even remember the last time I bought music that I couldnt download. I personally refuse to buy any artist i cant get on mp3.com or napster.. or itunes sometimes. I personally do not mind the DRM at all. I think it is a good thing for businesses to make money, but I sure wish artists would bypass the RIAA and market to me directly.
New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!
The people elect the politicians. A company can spend all they want on electing politicians. They'll not buy the legislation if people don't vote for them.
Sadly, most people don't care about what the government does in their name.
Additionally, aren't the reasons for ripping more than backing up? Isn't it perfectly leagal to make a low resolution copy of a "record?" This copy can not be used for distribution. IANAL, but Duh!
What happens when your CDs are stolen? Inusurance does not fully reimburse these expenses, as I found out when a couple of hundred left my possession. All of my music is now in iTunes, and the CDs are considered waste. If Apple used 196 or 256 I wouldn't even purchase them any longer.
"This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. "
Could they be contradicting themselves, or just trying to see what they can get away with? It irks me, because I do exactly what they describe above. I rip all of my CDs to a central server at home that is connected to my stereo, and queue up tracks all day long. I also burn custom CDs to listen to in the car. All of this I would consider fair use. I bought the CDs. I'm not uploading them to a file sharing service. Quite frankly if the RIAA is going to take this position described in TFA, then I am thinking that it may be time boycott them all together. I found a really great site that allows users to choose not to buy from any artist that supports them. I think it's been listed here bfore but I'll post it again.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
The issue here is that lyrics and the actual performance of the song are two entirely different copyrights and are covered under different laws. I can legally do a cover of any song I want, so long as I pay a per-copy fee on discs pressed or downloads granted. I can't print the lyrics without express permission of the lyricist or whoever currently holds copyright over the lyrics. This is one of the reasons karaoke selection can be so limitted... it's perfectly legal to record the cover version, even without vocals, but the minute you start displaying lyrics on the screen, you must have express permission.
Slashdot had an article on this a few months ago, where the MPAA (Music Publishers Association of America) was closing down lyrics sites. Similarly, people got confused there over the two seperate copyrights and who handled them.
But yeah, I'm a big one for lyrics too. My hearing isn't great when it comes to picking out signal to noise, so I have a hard time making out words on songs and, like you, I have the fragments I do know playing nonstop in my head, often with obviously distorted lyrics as my mind makes "best guesses" at the lyrics.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I'm much the same way. And if there are tracks that I just plain can't stand, they disappear off of my playlist.
Personally, I'm highly opposed to the RIAA's interpretation of the law because my only way of listening to music is via ripped copies of CDs that are sitting on my computer's harddrive. I go out to clearance racks and salvage stores and buy handfuls of CDs which look interesting at about $5 each and put the content on my computer. I then just let the mixture percolate on random and see what gems bubble up. *grumble* I wish one could tweak the iTunes model to change the frequency model for the "play higher rated tracks more often" setting, though.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
the BSAA (BlackSmith Artisans Association) has just announced that using a imperial hammer to pound metric sized nails is not 'Fair Use'. Nothing in the BMCA (Blacksmith Millenium Conservation Act) covers the use of imperial hammers with the wrong region-sized nails nor interfering with the jammer technology to allow the use of hammers with any sized nails. Further, the existance of imperial-sized nails and meric hammers removes any claim of necessity to mix the two. We must remember that it is a moral right for Blacksmiths to continue to be well paid, even in the days of industrialization. No amount of moderization can justify a drastic reworking of the mold upon which Blacksmiths are paid--civilization itself might end.
So remember kids: don't dejammer that hammer.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The day I read that ripping my own CDs to my own hard disk for my own use is illegal in the UK - well, that was the day I downloaded BitTorrent.
In for a penny, in for a pound...
I've been boycotting the RIAA since napster. Support the musicians not the politicians--down with the machine! woooo
> I'd say there's enough there to start a massive world-wide class-action lawsuit and force them to
I'd say there is no such thing as a world-wide class action lawsuit. Many us-americans need to realize that countries and therrefore legal systems differ.
If the RIAA and MPAA claim post sales rights on their products, then I claim post sale rights on my money! Yes, I claim the right to control what they do with my money after the sale. The money they get from me has restrictions. They may not spend my money on anything that dammages the environment (SUVs, Jets, crops raised with chemical pesticides). They may not spend my money in, or in support of any country without a popularly elected government. They may not give my money to lawyers or solicitors for any reason. I may change these restrictions at any time without notification. Attempting to circumvent these restrictions is a felony under the DMCA because this is my legal copy protection.
I also demand dammages for each dollar they spent in a way I don't approve of.
Oh, and I want the orginal cost plus interest back on the CDs and DVDs that I don't use any more. Since I'm done using the product, they should be done using my money.
I mean, it's only fair, that if I don't really own the music or movies I got from them, then they don't really own the money they got from me!
I like knowing who produced a track, who wrote it, who played on it, etc. I like getting album art, photographs etc. Now that artists have their own websites, this is less important than it was 20 years ago, but I still spend time in the liner notes of my CDs, especially those for indie and unsigned artists about whom it might be more difficult to get info online. But mostly I like a physical copy of the music, and the higher fidelity that comes on a CD.
CD-R blanks which are specially marked with a "Digital Audio" logo (and intended for use in CD-writing stereo components and such) already have a levy atteached to them to compensate the music industry.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
You said "in my understadnding, once you buy a CD, you have a license to play it's songs in any format, in as many devices as you want and as many cars you have."
... though I recall that there was an exception for making a tape for a car (which I can't find at the moment), but the ARHA put in specific laws about digital copies (as did the DCMA) ... so it's at least a fuzzy area.
According to what I can find on US law, that's not true. You have the right to play your CD wherever you want, but you have not got the right to make a copy of it (in the same or any other format)
"Copyright in a sound recording protects the particular series of sounds "fixed" (embodied in a recording) against unauthorized reproduction and revision"
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.html#what
This is how I get all my music now: 1. purchase song for $.99 at MSN Music; 2. Play in WMP; 3. Tunebite pops up and records it to MP3 while I listen to it for the first time; 4. Move DRM'd file to safe location, remove it from my library and enjoy all the unprotected musical goodness.
I'm not a pirate or a filesharer, I just want to be able to enjoy what I've purchased by using it to its full potential.
"That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you." -A. Whitney Brown
> thought I was "licensing the content," not "buying the CD." Shouldn't I
> be able to put my licensed content wherever I want?
Does anyone know where this "license" I supposedly agreed to by purchasing a CD can be found? I've checked every disc and CD liner in the house and can't find a license agreement anywhere. Or even a reference to a license.
If I'm just licensing *content*, why isn't the replacement CD free? If I'm purchasing media too, then i can make backups as i see fit.
If im licensing content, why is it wrong for me to listen to my purchased content on my ipod? I can only listen to one copy at a time.
What a scam... Next they will say listening to my content more than once isnt 'fair use' either.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Close. The set-top burners will reject non-"audio" CD-Rs. PC burners aren't designed to reject any type of CD blank.
Something is only fair use when the **AA's think it is fair. If they keep their crusade up, we won't be able to do anything with music and movies except pay and watch once before we pay again for having completed watching. Go to the Indy's you say. How long before the Indy's have to "abide" by the same forced legislation that the **AA's cram down our throats?
Thanks,
Leabre
What is the RIAA? I have always been a little vague about that. It seems to be an association of big lables and distributors on the one hand, but on the other it seems to have the mission of protecting the copyrights of all audio recording in the US. Down to your friendly local garage bands originals?
They seem to be trying to control all channels to market for the American audio consumer.
JACEM
DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
The carrot to FUD's stick
The RIAA wants it to be illegal to use our CDs with our iPods or other MP3 players? That not surprising since they would like us to buy the song each time we hear it. They must have cried a river when jukeboxes stopped bing popular because that's a business model they can relate to: no music until they see the coin. And really, if owning a CD doesn't give you the legal right to listen to the music now in their opinion, then what will? Do they even want people to play their CDs anymore if the player is a DVD player, since that's another digital format and we haven't paid again to use our music on that format if we use our CD? Why aren't they offering DVD versions of all of our music CDs?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
This is a technological step backwards from audio CDs, which are already quarter-century-old technology. I am unimpressed.
So is your DRM apologism.As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Fuck off!
You don't represent us!
In the mean time, everyone is welcome to come to http://zenapolae.com/ where we have a number of CD releases where we encourage you to rip them to your computer, download them to your iPod, bring them out to the club to DJ with, share them with your friends, play them on your internet radio station, and even create your own derivitive works from them.
Our creations are not inspired by GREED! Our desire to create is all we need!
We also have FREE downloads every month from our online net label bitphitz. All released under the Creative Commons License.
I believe that if I buy the CD, it is mine. And, while I realize that the law may not agree with me, I know that I am free to choose whether I will obey the law. There might be concequences, and I will consider them when I make my decision.
The point is, even if the RIAA is right, and the law does support them, and says I can't copy my CD to a mp3 and play it while Im in my car, that's Just Too Bad. Its not the LAW they need to convinve, it's the PEOPLE.
The law says you can't go over 55 (well higher now on some interstates) on the highway. I see thousands of cars going over 65, some going over 80 (dont ask how i know). When people don't believe in a law, its not going to work.
Maybe someday they will learn, and start campaigns to make people want to change their opinion of what they can do with a CD. Suing their customers is not going to make anyone want to be on their side.
When I went from cassette tapes to CDs back around 1992 or so, I repurchased a few of those albums I had on cassette so I could listen to them in my CD player. I also have my parents' collection of vinyl records from the 1970s. However, if and when I want to dust off my dad's old Doobie Brothers and Chicago albums, I don't warm up the turntable, I dig up the tracks on iTunes.
It isn't really that different than it has been.
lets see - by their analogy i must buy a new car to drive to work, but i have to buy second new car to drive to the grocery store, and a third new car to drive out of town to visit relatives, and a fouth new car to drive to sporting events and concerts, or must i buy a fifth new car for concerts?, i must check with the RIAA automobile club
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Slightly to the left of topic: I remember seeing this when it was first published on Time's website: http://www.time.com/time/techtime/200304/sites_dev il.html
Not sure if this was discussed before or not, but essentially it's an article that encourages and explains how to download music without paying for te 'overhead', when all you want is the music.
Surprised they didn't get sued for this?
>Sure, I can back up the music I purchase from iTMS. And I can burn it to a CD. But it is now a lower quality than what I purchased which is already a lower quality than what I could get from a CD. Doesn't matter if I can detect it or not. The fact is, its a lower quality.
Burning an AAC-encoded song to an audio CD doesn't further decrease the quality. You're gonna hear exactly the same thing from the AAC file and the burned audio CD. Of course, ripping that CD again will lead to more loss, but that's not what you're saying.
Lets all sit back and watch the RIAA go up against Apple,
after all the only reason they have been so successful in litigation at all, is because they threaten massive ($5k+) lawsuits against those who cant afford legal defense. I am guessing Apple on the other hand CAN afford some pretty decent lawyers and due to the number of iPods (you just have to walk through a town) they have a public sympathetic to them. Imagine the outcry when everyone is told that they cant rip their CDs to their iPod. I know people use iTunes for downloading but I am guessing most iPODs are full of their owners CD collection. Especially those of the older, less download happy citizen.
The RIAA may have public support for its attack on piracy (of course, it may not) but it wont if it goes after clearly legal and popular practices. Such practices which are popular across all the demographics.
But there does seem to be another irony here. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sony BMG one of the bigger companies behind the RIAA and isn't Sony Electronics one of the bigger MP3 player makers. Perhaps they dont realise they are suing themselves.
I cant help but think this looks like the kind of crazy thing a dictator who is losing control would attempt.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Don't buy their crap. There has been practically NO new music that I want to listen to, let alone pay for. If they want to try to redesign our definition of 'copyright' laws, and fair use laws, then let them. I don't NEED to have their product to live, or to enjoy life.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
The Music industry and the RIAA have been ripping us off for years. This is not new news. But I will continue to buy CDs (or whatever the current medium is) for two reasons. 1.) I like having the cover art and liner notes! I want to know who wrote the song and I like to read the lyrics. 2.) I only buy the entire album if I like the entire album. There are maybe ten bands that I know will produce a great disc every time and I want to own their vision. Their art.
I don't know how much more insanity I can take. The RIAA has been a rabid dog, and I think it's time someone put it down.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Okay, maybe I should have worded it as "A world-wide series of law-suits, suiting local legal codes and judiciary systems"...
Does that make you happier?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
later in that transcript:
MR. VERRILLI: I disagree with that, Your Honor. 21 Certainly not -- I don't think there's any empirical 22 evidence to suggest, with respect to any of the things 23 that Your Honor just identified -- and let me pick out the 24 iPod as one, because it's the most current example, I 25 guess. From the moment that device was introduced, it was
11
Alderson Reporting Company
1111 14th Street, NW Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005
1 obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial 2 uses for it. And let me clarify something I think is 3 unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my 4 clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on 5 their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly 6 lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto 7 your computer, put it onto your iPod.
New and improved Guilt. Now its alcohol soluble!
It's simple people. ITunes is selling enough songs now and there are no real competitors that they have become aware that if it continues, Apple will have control of a significant percentage of the RIAA's revenue stream. Once ITunes hits 25% of the RIAA revenue Steve Jobs will be able to tell the RIAA what they are going to pay for the songs instead of the RIAA dictating it. This is exactly the reason they wanted to prevent Wallmart from controlling CD sales, for fear that they would then start dictating the prices. The RIAA has become very concious of how popular the ipod's are and how successful Itunes is. As a result they have to do anything they can to reduce Itunes share of the marketplace.
Personally I'm happy it's going this way, the DRM they wanted is now restricting purchases to one single store which is now moving towards a significant portion of the online sales. With how big of an ass Steve Job's is, once it reaches the point where he can dictate prices to the RIAA he will kill their margins in favor of apples margin. On top of that the success of Itunes could end up killing the record companies altogether as people post their own music on it without a record contract with an RIAA company.
magnatune.com
http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand
Someone's got some 'splainin' to do.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
The direct attack on my ability to enjoy my copyrights - the right to make a fair use copy of material.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Nobody said it was a fair world .... ;)
RIAA crybabies
I see a bunch of bitching about how iTunes is inferior, and a lot of it in the opposite direction, but what I wanted to comment on was how the argument in favour or iTunes states "only the hit songs are worth buying, the rest is crap", thus making iTunes more convenient and cheaper. Well... to me, finding a single song I like from an artist only clue's me into them. When I buy a CD, it's because I want it. When I buy a CD, I want the song I like, I want it in physical format, and I want to hear what else the artist has to say or do. I want to experience the rest of thier work...
So while iTunes has it's positives, it's not definitely better. Also, I buy most of my music on the second hand market, so I pay even less (roughly 6 or 7 dollar per disc, not counting my rare albums). To me, hearing the rest of the story is important... not just some overhyped bullshit that got played on the radio half a dozen times. If I wanted to hear that, I'd turn on the local clearchannel station.
... it's perfectly legal to make an interpretive "copy", so as long as they don't succeed in too accurate a portrayal of your conversation, they are safe, as far as the "performance" copyright is concerned. "The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording."
114
(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
As I understand things (and IANAL) your speech would be a public performance rather than a sound recording and so would have different protection. Now if you record your speech first and then play them that recording, then if they can reproduce those actual sounds, you'd have a case!
... you own a CD, you're allowed to play the CD whereever you want (as long as it isn't public performance, broadcast etc.) since you paid the copyright holder (or their agent) the fee to have that CD and use it for personal use. And under section 109 you're permitted to sell or otherwise dispose of your CD without permission of the copyright holder.
... however copyright law still applies (or so most legal interpretations of the copyright law would say) and so you don't have the right to make another copy (on CD, MP3 or other) without the copyright holder's permission ... now you and I may agree that that law sucks, but it's what the wording is trying to say. As far as I can tell, US copyright law doesn't allow you to photocopy a whole book or scan it into your computer to read on a PDA except under some very strict conditions (e.g. visually impaired or as part of an educational course at an appropriate institution and then only for the purposes of the course). You buy a book, it's yours, and if you want to tear the hard cover off and put on a soft cover, that's fine. But (according to my reading of copyright) you don't have the right to make a copy of a hardback (even one you own) and bind the copy in softback, even for your own use (no commercial value and no resale). Same for music.
You own the CD, you can do anything you want with the CD
Change (or clarify) the law. It's your government, they work for *you*. The law, as it stands, is for the benefit of the big corporations and copyright holders.
Apparently RIAA is helping keep credit cards from being a unique product.
Every time you buy form these bastards, you support their efforts to destroy our computers, but installing their big-brother crap on them. I have a God given right to do whatever I want on my PC. I will not allow them to install their DRM crap and root kits on my PC.
We have 2 options:
(1) Grab an AK and walk into the stock holders meeting for one of the RIAA / MPAA / BSA member companies, and give our lives defending our right to play with source code.
(2) Shoot them in the wallet by not buying from them, and not associating with anyone who does. Simply put, if my friend puts an RIAA approved CD in, I demand (s)he stop the vehicle, then I walk.
Lock and load, one way or another. We have to shoot every one of the mother fuckers, one at a time.
Andy Out!
All the 10-19 year-olds I know get the music from BitTorrent..
[ReidNews]
Only ONE good song on the whole freakin' album: "Get By." The rest is filler. Aside from the "Our New Orleans" benefit album, I've not bought a new CD since. Used CDs uber alles!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I am looking to unload 10,000 tracks I bought on iTunes. I paid a buck a piece for them, but am willing to sell the whole lot for $500. I don't listen to them much anymore and the wife keeps bitching about how much space they take up around the house. PayPal accepted. any takers?
If you follow the logic of the RIAA, when I use my digital camera to take a picture, transferring it to my pc is a violation since I am technically making a copy of that image. If I tweak the image in Photoshop I have made an illegal modification to my original work. If I email the picture to my Mom, I have made another illegal copy. If I back up my hard drive, I have created yet another illegal copy. If I put it on a CD (another copy) to take to Walgreens to make a print (another copy). In doing so, Walgreens violates the copyright by taking the image from my CD and storing it in their printer. Now say I hang this in photo in the window. Every person that walks by is USING my work. I have illegally shared my image with them.
Take it a step further (with all the hysteria about sampling/mixing/mashing) The fact that I have even taken a photograph is a violation, because I am icluding in my image the likeness of things that someone ELSE created. (say, my house, the clothes my girlfriend is wearing, etc.)
If you follow the RIAA logic to completion, it is illegal to be alive, as we have made illegal copies of DNA."Copying for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright" (emphasis mine).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Are they really that fucking stupid? do these people think even for a second that im going to rebuy a cd? With the crappy quality of audio cds nowadays (lets face it: i have 15yo cds that work perfect and a new one will skip after the first time you drop it on the floor), whenever i buy one i pop it directly into my pc and rip it before i even hear it for the first time. Id like to see those **AA assholes investigated and having their privacy fucked up like they do on teenage kids to see if at least they (who say that you have to buy cds for your stereo and the same music files again for your ipod) do it. cheers!
I wonder if there is a law firm out there that would take on such a class action suit. It's pretty tempting, if you ask me.
Sure, there's a good chance you wouldn't win; however, if you did, the defendent companies are filthy rich and pretty much every adult (in the U.S., since that is my context) would be a potential member of the class.
I say this in hopes of inspiring readers who do practice law to consider this. Just consider the large stacks of money you could make if you succeeded...
I think most people feel the game is rigged. In the majority of the elections, we are presented with two "opponents" who are usually not as different as they would like us to believe.
We share our part of the blame, too. But we are not offering ourselves for sale; nor are we generally the ones buying, as we don't have enough money for that game.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.