[rant]
As a musician, THANKS YOU A-HOLES!!!!

Do you wanna know how I fight the system (well, no you don't, but here it comes anyway)? I buy my music directly from the artists/record companies/retailers who's product and business practices are up to my standards.

Rest assured, most of the music that is stolen by most folks does not fall under said criteria.

The other good way to "stick it" to the record company is to go to live shows. Most musicians (esp. if they are on a major label) will see half-pennies per CD. Live shows tend to put more (not great, but more) money into the hands of the musicians/artists.

If you feel the need to steal from Metallica, it slights a bunch of suits more than anything. If you feel the need to steal from The Pernice Brothers, Wisely, Michael Franti and Spearhead, myself and countless others who own themselves, then a big .

May you someday *only* be allowed to steal Jessica Simpson albums.
[/rant]

Rant aside, the RIAA's case is weak due to the simple fact that the broadcast versions are low-quality copies. If you can find the analogy to the taping-of-CD's (which quietly came and went), the cease-and-desist should be dropped soon.

 

I'm buying music at live shows - there's so much music out there you can easily avoid the mainstream and still find tons of cool bands. Plus, you can get autographed CDs and sometimes hang out with band members after they play - never know who's going to blow up. If you think of music as all the water on the planet, most people are only aware of what's on their shore - they have no idea how much is really out there.

Don't worry, I'm not pirating Brittney Spears songs.

On the other hand, $90 per ticket to see the Red Hot Chili Peppers in concert? Please.

 

$100 for the cheap seats for Streisand.

 

I should check myself on this. . .
Upon re-reading the article, it seems to me that the RIAA has very little ground to stand on at all.

1. Your listening to music you purchased is "fair use." Dancing in a home without taking funds for it (that's the important part) is fair use.

2. Videotaping said dance/parody/etc. without taking money is not fair use per se, but:

a. if the video does not have a digital-to-digital transfer, then it's (as was stated in my first post) on shaky ground.

b. if the video is used for instructional purposes, then it can be considered fair use in certain circumstances which have to be proven in court (so, the cease-and-desist does carry weight to a point).

c. if the video is parody, then while not "fair use," is protected under free speech.

The only thing of minor concern (from my non-legal but musical background) is You Tube posting ads on the site (and thus generating money). I've not used You Tube, but if they post a warning stating that the user is obligated to follow the copyright rules for his/her country, then that should cover that "good enough."