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.""
"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
Thanks, so I'll just buy another copy. Great solution.
a boycott? Seriously... it seems the only way to get the attention of hostile businesses is to deny them income.
Since when did enjoy == screw the customer for every last dime?
"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.
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.
...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
That isnt their goal at all, in fact, it's quite the opposite. They're trying to kill the CD market in favor of the online download business. Onine downloads do not give us the same rights that buying a CD does, in fact, we get less rights (seemingly only the limited right to play the song, and copy it to another medium a limited number of times). By making CDs more expensive or difficult to acquire, or incompatible with portable music players, they can cause the market to shift itself to mediums that they can better control, even before the CD becomes completely obsolete.
Which is exactly what the RIAA wants; they make far more off a download than a CD, at least on a per-track basis. Ringtones even more so. And for a lower quality product.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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
Actually each one of these places you can play your files is one copy, and since you have a limited amount of copies, you're gonna have to re-buy the same song you already own once you have no copies left.
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.
Another problem is iTunes proprietary format not being compatible with all media devices(or devices not compatible with DRMed media in general).
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.
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.
It's actually the opposite. With a CD, you can do whatever you like in terms of portable player (no matter what the RIAA wants you to believe). With DRM-protected music, you'll end up buying the same music several times, which is *exactly* what the RIAA wants. That's probably the only way they can sustain your business. If you don't produce anything new, your only hope is to keep selling the old stuff.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Maybe stop giving them our dollars?
You clearly don't have a three year old in your house.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Downloaded tracks cost relatively more than the CD version and you have less control over what you can do with them. With the CD you can rip it, lend it, play it or turn it into a shiny coaster if you want. Just because the RIAA doesn't think it's fair use to rip your CD to your iPod doesn't mean they are right. The only downside to the CD is that there are often only a half or a third of the songs on it that you'll actually listen to. That's a big downside though.
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
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.
I respectfully disagree completely. In my opinion, buying a CD that has no copy protection on it is the only way music should be purchased at this time. Forget what the RIAA says. I can rip my CD's to my iPod. Why? Because the technology is there and the courts have granted me Fair Use rights.
And why do I want to own CD's instead of songs from iTMS? Several reasons. One, its a physical copy that can be resold. And two, because legally purchased music from online stores such as iTMS have DRM built in. Sure, Apple's Fair Play DRM is the least restrictive measure of DRM there is. But its still restrictive. How? Try playing your music through TiVo's desktop software. It can't play DRM'd AAC files. But every CD player in the world can play a true CD. And that CD can be legally ripped to a format of my liking regardless of what the RIAA's lawyers want to say. And the Fair Play DRM is also on Apple's videos on iTMS. But guess what, unlike the music, they won't let you copy these videos. So, essentially, you are locked into using iTunes and Quicktime for these videos. Which brings up the real reason for DRM. Vendor lock-in.
Sure, the RIAA pretty much insisted that Apple use DRM when they opened iTMS. But it has screwed the RIAA ever since. Had they not insisted on DRM, iTMS would not have the upper hand in their battle with the RIAA. Apple may not have wanted DRM then, but I guarantee you they want it now. Why? Because if the music on iTMS doesn't have DRM, then it would be much easier for you to purchase music from iTMS and play it on any player out there. With the DRM, you are pretty much forced into using the iPod. Do you think that Apple would give up the vendor lock-in now? And what if an independent artist wanted to put their music on iTMS but didn't want any DRM. I wonder if Apple would go along with that or would Apple insist on DRM. Has anybody tried this? I'd be interested to know what Apple said. This would tell once and for all Apple's stance on the DRM issue.
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.
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.
All very true, but you're preaching to the converted.
Instead tell your (if you are American) government to stop the RIAA riding roughshod all over you in the name of profit. Or do the equivalent in your area of the world.
And start supporting unencumbered music not sold by RIAA members, and give artists money by seeing them live.
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.
The **AA has spent the past 20 years trying to change the rules. You used to be able to send back cassettes or albums for replacements when damaged; the only charge was shipping.
Now they tell you it can't be replaced, because that version has been replaced by a "new" release, even with relatively-recently purchased media.
Currently they're trying to cut it back further, so that it's not even legal for you to listen to your media on a portable device without paying yet again.
To hell with the greedy bastards. Once or twice at the trough was more than enough -- no more.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Yes, and then they can cry about piracy causing a slump in CD sales and call for even more draconian "reforms." Copyrights were provided for in the Constitution as a neccesary evil, only to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." When the copyright laws stifle rather than promote that progress, then they need to be repealed.
This is allready happening. Various 'aggregators' allow musicians and/or indie labels to publish music on iTunes and Rhapsody, against a hefty sum that is. Tunecore (http://www.tunecore.com/) offers the same, against much smaller costs.
Record companies had 3 monopolies which allowed them to firmly control the recording industry:
* To record an album you need a studio, which is expensive. Record companies paid band to use studios, tying the bands to the record company.
* To publish an album, you need to put it on CD (or LP), and get it out to record stores (distribution). Both of these activities come with huge expenses upfront.
* Finally, you need to promote and plug a band, which requires a network of people you know.
Nowadays, as a musician, I can record decent quality productions at home with the aid of a computer, at a fraction of the costs it would take if I were to do it in a studio. Distribution can take place via the Internet, (e.g. Tunecore), and for promotion/plugging, web2.0 like community networks and a well designed website can get you somewhere.
Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.
Does no one any longer care about the loss of fidelity? I mean sure, a lossy format copy of music is great for a portable player in a gym or even in a car, a couple of the worst possible listening environments.
but, for home use...would you not rather have the best possible sound in your better listening environment? I don't mean you have to spend tons of dollars on super high end audio, but, at least maximize the sound for your enviroment?
On a slightly different note, I do like fairly high end stuff...but, it isn't like I built my system overnight. I've worked, saved and bought and replaced componets over many years. Do people just not know or care what really good sound reproduction is?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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 treat it as a license to listen to something (like Windows CDs), then they MUST replace a damaged CD.
They can't have it both ways.
Courts have ruled for past 150 years that the concept of reselling something is sacred. In other words if RIAA sells something to me, i have every right to make a second sale of it to someone i like. RIAA loses the right to dictate whether i can sell it or not once they have sold it to me.
On the other hand, if they license it to me, then we ALL should send back Akon CDs to them (even perfectly good ones) and ask for replacement. That would bankrupts them.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Why? Because if the music on iTMS doesn't have DRM, then it would be much easier for you to purchase music from iTMS and play it on any player out there.
Right idea, wrong direction.
It isn't that the music is selling the iPod, the iPod is selling the music. Apple is doing just fine w/ the iPod, DRM or not.. BUT, the clever part is that by having the iTunes player exclusively operate w/ their store-front, they have verticle integration. Similar to an MS platform. They can leverage one revenue stream against another.
If apple didn't have DRM in two forms, one that an iPod player is tied to a PC, and that iTunes is tied to the player + PC, then it would be easy for someone to use non-iTunes software, thereby breaking the vertical integration.
iTunes may or may not be lucrative (relative to profits from the iPod). But it's a stable platform of lock-in. Once you have $50 worth of iTunes (call it $25 of profit; less than the likely $100 of profit for a high-end iPod), then a person will be hesitant to throw all that away by moving to another PC software package (which doesn't support the DRM).
Throw in gift certificates / parental allowances for music purchases etc, and your invested interest grows and grows until lockin is inevetable.
Their store-front (visa v iTunes player) is like the AOL desktop of the 90's or IE/firefox toolbar or the google-task bar or of course the immensely lucrative stock windows desktop. It's real-estate as in central manhattan.
-Michael
No, no. That's the entire point of DRM. Piracy is a straw man. What person, having bought an iPod, and collected some music tracks, is going to say, screw it, I'm throwing away this investment, and going with some other service? No, they want to be able to access their whole collection on whatever device they have. That means they stay with an iPod, and with iTunes. It's classic Microsoftian tactics. DRM keeps people locked in APPLE'S DRM-ed vertical stack. That's EVERYONE'S strategy with DRM.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
If they get the right laws passed, sure they can.
Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.
While I agree with your sentiment, that record companies in their current form are now obsolete, I would have to say that the days of the record companies in general are not over yet. However, their purpose and place in this business is quickly changing.
Sure, you can do all that stuff yourself, recording on your home PC, publishing online, marketing through deli.cio.us or whoever. But that just gets you "good enough." In order to get a GREAT product, you really should use a professional recording studio with extremely high-end microphones, a professionally trained producer, and marketers who actually went to marketing school. All of that stuff is expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars, and that's where the record company comes in.
The record company should really be thought of as a venture capital firm for musicians. They front some money to the artist to pay for all the recording, producing, distribution, and marketing fees, and then the artist gives them a percentage of their earnings from that album in return. In other areas of venture capitalism, the risk is shared by both parties, the VC firm and the startup. If the idea is a flop, they BOTH lose money. However, in the last 30 years or so, the record companies have gotten so powerful that their cut of earnings has steadily gone up, and they started adding clauses about the band having to pay back all that up-front cost as well, with interest, out of their cut. The net result is that the record companies will sign just about anybody, because the deal is so one-sided that the band will go broke and declare bankruptcy long before the record companies ever lose money. They just sit back and get rich off other people's music, and this worked because they were the only game in town. It was either them or printing flyers and posting them on street corners.
The next generation of record companies (and I am fairly sure a new generation is coming) will succeed because they will play nice. The deals they cut with the artists will be fair to both parties, the IP rights will be shared, and everyone will get rich if the band succeeds. When the risk is shared like that, there is pressure on the record company to only sign good bands that will be good long-term investments. The flavor-of-the-month approach only works when there's no risk to the record company, since there are 3 flops for every superstar. Signing bands with appeal AND musical talent is a long-term investment: the band will continue to grow and create more great music, develop a loyal following of fans, and be very visible. Marketers call that "building a brand"; musicians call it "fandom". Either way you look at it, it's good business: the record company has performers and albums they are proud of, the fans get better music on average, the musicians actually make money, and everyone gets to keep their soul. Good times.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
The IP value of a CD (performer + composer + producer) is about $5...
Fascinating. Now, how did you calculate that?
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
"In that case stop driving a car, stop using the phone, stop using the internet, stop watching tv, stop using electricity, stop using heat, hell pretty much stop using just about everything you have.
/. definition, every company is a greedy bastard."
"By the
What poor reasoning. "Because no company is perfect, it's pointless to criticize any of them." This is particularly stupid in this situation, where we do all have a perfectly good mechanism to bypass the record companies for the most part (p2p or just ripping your friend's CDs).
What the hell are you talking about?
Car: I go to Honda and give them $20k or so, and they give me a nice car that's extremely reliable and fuel efficient. They also honor their warranty and repair the car when there's a problem during the first 5 years. The car works great for 10-15 years. What's the problem here? There's no blatant greediness; just a good product for a reasonable price.
Internet: I pay $50 per month for my cable modem service, and it works just as advertised. The price hasn't changed in two years, and they haven't been trying to force me into paying more money for the same thing (yet). Just another simple business transaction.
Electricity: Same as cable. I pay x cents per kilowatt-hour. The power stays on, I haven't had any brownouts or blackouts in 5 years since I moved here. What's the problem? This isn't greed, it's simple business. Provide a good service for a fair price.
CDs: Buy a CD, and find out it isn't really a true CD, and doesn't play correctly. Try to return it and they won't accept it. Buy a normal CD and they tell you that the content isn't really yours, you can't resell it, but you can't use it the way you want either (on your iPod). So is it licensed or not? Neither; it's whatever way they'll make more money, even though this isn't actually backed up by any laws. This is greed, plain and simple, and it's evil.
There's honest ways to earn money, and there's dishonest ways of taking money. The music industry is doing the latter.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.