New RIAA Lawsuit
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
From: SFV
Originally Posted by Elistan,Jan 3 2008, 12:10 PM
I think the point is that this money shouldn't be theirs in the first place.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by YoZUpZ,Jan 2 2008, 08:18 AM
I think most of us here probably understand licensing laws. The problem is, is that what the RIAA is doing is saying that "if you buy a CD, you can't put it onto your computer or iPod" ...which is like Microsoft saying "you can buy our Windows XP cd, but you can't put it onto your computer. Or saying, you can buy Windows XP, but you can't put it on a laptop, only on a desktop.
In order to put it onto your iPod (according to what the RIAA is saying, you would have to purchase 1 song (or get licensing) 3 different times... Just to put it on your iPod (or two times, if you just buy it off iTunes)
Its like those old computer games where you could run it from the CD, but they recommended installing it onto your computer, so it will run more smoothly. It would have been straight up retarted for one of those companies to say "you have to pay for the game twice if you want to install it on your computer, otherwise you will have to run it from the cd.
Yes, the illegal downloading of music is hurting the RIAA, but saying that "you cannot put the music on your computer or mp3 player is retarted. Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if they came out with an iRIAA and told everyone that you are only "legally allowed" to copy their music onto their iRIAA, and no other mobile device (just so they can make money)
In order to put it onto your iPod (according to what the RIAA is saying, you would have to purchase 1 song (or get licensing) 3 different times... Just to put it on your iPod (or two times, if you just buy it off iTunes)
Its like those old computer games where you could run it from the CD, but they recommended installing it onto your computer, so it will run more smoothly. It would have been straight up retarted for one of those companies to say "you have to pay for the game twice if you want to install it on your computer, otherwise you will have to run it from the cd.
Yes, the illegal downloading of music is hurting the RIAA, but saying that "you cannot put the music on your computer or mp3 player is retarted. Heck, I wouldn't be suprised if they came out with an iRIAA and told everyone that you are only "legally allowed" to copy their music onto their iRIAA, and no other mobile device (just so they can make money)
What happened was a typical scenario, they prosecuted a big-time P2P file sharer, and pulled that old card out in the case to say that the 2000 files he shared were unauthorized derivatives of the work.
So I believe you are still protected by Fair Use. That is to say, as long as you aren't selling the copies you make, or sharing them on a P2P (which is as bad as selling since it is a zero sum game) then you are fine.
BIG MISUNDERSTANDING, imo.
Besides, when was the last time anyone here bought a CD?
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Originally Posted by ksxxsk,Jan 3 2008, 03:17 PM
Ok, I just read up on the case. I think the OP and everyone else (including me) made the unsubstantiated assumption that the RIAA is trying to pass some law into effect that prohibits ppl from transferring music from CDs to their computer.
What happened was a typical scenario, they prosecuted a big-time P2P file sharer, and pulled that old card out in the case to say that the 2000 files he shared were unauthorized derivatives of the work.
So I believe you are still protected by Fair Use. That is to say, as long as you aren't selling the copies you make, or sharing them on a P2P (which is as bad as selling since it is a zero sum game) then you are fine.
BIG MISUNDERSTANDING, imo.
Besides, when was the last time anyone here bought a CD?
What happened was a typical scenario, they prosecuted a big-time P2P file sharer, and pulled that old card out in the case to say that the 2000 files he shared were unauthorized derivatives of the work.
So I believe you are still protected by Fair Use. That is to say, as long as you aren't selling the copies you make, or sharing them on a P2P (which is as bad as selling since it is a zero sum game) then you are fine.
BIG MISUNDERSTANDING, imo.
Besides, when was the last time anyone here bought a CD?
I quote:
In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
I never said they were trying to pass a law - I indicated a precedent was being attempted to disallow copying from CDs to any personal devices.
More info here as well - http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-no...jerks-about-it/ .
Fair use should save him on the sharing side but they (RIAA) are arguing that it DOES NOT cover making a copy on your computer and that it should be cover his actions in copying the CDs to his computer.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19,734
Likes: 247
Oh, and I buy CDs all the time. I get 'em cheap on Ebay and occasionally Amazon. I don't go near P2P because of all the crap on there - you can't search without getting a ton of $$$$$$ plus with the increased scrutiny, it's not worth it regardless. I can buy CDs all day long for $5 or $6 and that works just fine for me.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by Ubetit,Jan 1 2008, 10:51 AM
Re-read my thread.
Only the performing artists haven't been payed by the radio stations. Performing artists usually don't play and instrument or write songs that are copyrighted; think Britney Spears. Radio has long payed BMI and ASCAP which takes care of those copyrighted songs. If you write your own music and lyrics you get royalties. The industry has changed however to a bunch of people that just lend their voices. I believe this is the reason for the push from the RIAA.
The artists and record labels lean on Radio to make things a hit so they've always given them leway on the performance aspect of it. If the RIAA changes that, the stations are going to be much more picky about new music and only playing familiar hits. Good luck to the record business then.
Just to further tell you how far this has gone, if you own a bar that has cover bands perform the bar owner also needs to pay BMI, ASCAP and RIAA fees. Each one is seperate, each one is a lot of money. All of my past bar/club clients have had to quit live music in their establishments. A few years ago we had a swarm of BMI and ASCAP lawyers descend on Columbus. I'm not saying they don't have the right but....
The whole industry needs a paradigm shift. The RIAA better find a way to do it without cutting their own throats.
Only the performing artists haven't been payed by the radio stations. Performing artists usually don't play and instrument or write songs that are copyrighted; think Britney Spears. Radio has long payed BMI and ASCAP which takes care of those copyrighted songs. If you write your own music and lyrics you get royalties. The industry has changed however to a bunch of people that just lend their voices. I believe this is the reason for the push from the RIAA.
The artists and record labels lean on Radio to make things a hit so they've always given them leway on the performance aspect of it. If the RIAA changes that, the stations are going to be much more picky about new music and only playing familiar hits. Good luck to the record business then.
Just to further tell you how far this has gone, if you own a bar that has cover bands perform the bar owner also needs to pay BMI, ASCAP and RIAA fees. Each one is seperate, each one is a lot of money. All of my past bar/club clients have had to quit live music in their establishments. A few years ago we had a swarm of BMI and ASCAP lawyers descend on Columbus. I'm not saying they don't have the right but....
The whole industry needs a paradigm shift. The RIAA better find a way to do it without cutting their own throats.
Without radio and television play music - mostly radio - I'd have very little idea of what is available. Then I wouldn't be able to download it from a torrent somewhere
Just kidding.I think it's ridiculous. To me, purchasing a CD or MP3 online means that I have purchased the ability to play it on a single set of speakers at any time. If I decide to transfer that ability to a friend and give it up myself, that's my call. Whatever, keep this up and the nerds of the world will become even more serious in their pursuit of means to bypass protection. And I'll be right on board with them. I'm not paying for all the music I listen to. I pay for it on a song-by-song basis when it's good and the artists/composers/etc deserve it. I realize you can't run the music market that way though.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
From: SFV
I would agree with your analogy if the actors your refer to wrote their own scripts, and relied upon the works they wrote to put food into their mouths. 'Transfering ability to a friend' in your film analogy is the same thing as buying a movie ticket, seeing the movie, then giving that ticket stub to someone else.
I'm all for being able to play a song that you purchased in as many devices as you own, regardless of format. It's when the song goes to friends that it becomes a problem.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does purchasing a CD limit you to one pair of speakers? Maybe if you only own one CD player...
Oh I see, you said at any one time. But even so - do you listen to more than one device at a time? An aural multi-tasker perhaps? 
I'm all for being able to play a song that you purchased in as many devices as you own, regardless of format. It's when the song goes to friends that it becomes a problem.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does purchasing a CD limit you to one pair of speakers? Maybe if you only own one CD player...
Oh I see, you said at any one time. But even so - do you listen to more than one device at a time? An aural multi-tasker perhaps?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 11,993
Likes: 1
From: formerly versionJDM
Originally Posted by Ubetit,Jan 3 2008, 08:22 PM
For those of you already ticked off... consider a pay to play system where every song you want to play will deduct 5 cents from your bank account. I'm not kidding.