When will the madness stop?

Just let us use our damn products!

There's got to be more to this story than what's on the surface. How on earth did the RIAA know that he had music on his computer? I'm wondering if this is a reaction to the recent case they took to court where the woman's defense (which didn't work) was that they didn't know if anyone downloaded the shared music. Perhaps the RIAA is thinking that rather than suing for sharing, they'll sue for copying, which is much easier to prove.

Whatever the RIAA and JBT are smoking I want some because reality sucks.

His initial problem was that he had the music in a shared folder or something. It's really hard to track the original story on this, because the Washington Post article yesterday leaves out all the details. The RIAA are complete idiots, and have done everything contrary to what's good for them, but the original case wasn't quite just ripping mp3's to the guy's computer. There was some sort of a shared folder that they didn't like. It's still not a justifiable attack, though.

I'm sorry but ignoring the RIAA and its crap is also just another way of saying "STFU! I couldn't care less you money-grabbing bastards." You'd think that Sony and the like would have gone after Apple and Microsoft for including CD-ripping features in their iTunes and Media Player software.

I'm not from the US, so forgive this seemingly ignorant question:

Is that RIAA poster on the article for real?

@ Twin-Skies

Its parody. Funny parody at that.

@jdmdsp911

I'm way ahead of you: I'm happy - nay, proud - the say that I was given a new iPod Nano for Christmas and that I wasted no time in not only ripping all of my CDs to my laptop so I can take them anywhere with me, but I also then transfered copies of those copies to my iPod in case that I don't have my laptop on me at a given time. I will also then be letting friends (and random people if they ask) listen to MY music, as it will provide free advertising to the artists, which is more than the RIAA actually does.

Can I point out that this is slightly skewed. What the RIAA says in its briefs is that it is an infringement to (i) copy music to your harddrive AND (ii) place it into a publicly shared folder.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe this doesn't fit with what they say publicly, but it's what they're arguing legally (at least in Howell, page 15): http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAA...

This is the controversial "making available" theory.

Note that they also argue, on the same page, the less controversial "actual distribution" when they note that 11 of the recordings were actually distributed from that computer.

Continue pirating MP3's!

@Twin-Skies

Yes, they do exist, and really will happily sue people into bankruptcy for not paying the 12 dollars for a CD.

Course, Disney is no better with their forced scarcity using that vault.

[...] via GamePolitics  [...]

Haha, good old RIAA. Still treating digital media as if it were physical. What ever happened to making copies for "personal use"? That was the rule where most parties have compromised with.

I collect a couple dance records and am trying to archive them all to mp3. It beats wearing down the needle and records each time I want to listen to it. I sure hope the RIAA law doesn't extend to underground labels producing dance music (that are still in business anyway).

They just made digital distribution (Itunes etc.) that much more attractive. Hey, and I can just buy the song I want instead of the other 8 crappy songs that I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg - Weird Al for the win.

As for the RIAA, yeah, they're quite insane, and I bet Jack Thompson supports this kinda thing, ugh.

Oh yeah, the RIAA back in then DID have a huge problem with cassette recorders, just like the TV and Movie industry had a problem with the VCR, both tried to eliminate them and failed, yet they still were in business making record profits for much of that time.


Now if you excuse me, I need to do some sorting/cleaning of the MP3s and videos on my Zen Vision M.

I remember the issues they had, but it never became a huge public issue until the internet allowed easy transfer of music. If they yould have spent as much energy back then as they are now, perhaps they could have changed their business model so as to survive. Instead, they have created millions of RIAA-haters that willingly give music away for free. Most people, myself included, do it just to spite them.

I see the RIAA being run by a bunch of old eighty-year old curmudgeons that can't accept that they are failing at running their antiquated industry in a technological world.

I hope they go bankrupt. Artists will still make their money from concerts and can distribute their music on their own, online, and actually make more money than they did with recording companies that are in league with the RIAA.

This whole RIAA mess has been a hot button topic with me for a long time.

It is as easy as: Media technology has evolved beyond the ability of the controlling interest to manage it.

VCRs? Recordable DVDs? Recordable CDs? Tivo? PMPs? Cassette Dubbers? DVD Rippers?

It's evolution baby!

Only the industry can make sharing a bad word. How are my kids gonna make friends in the future?

int0xitive

Ironic timing about your post and mine... and the concert aspect...

It's funny, there's a major movie studio that is now including a digital version of the movie on a purchased DVD so you can transfer it right to your computer. The MPAA isn't making a stink about this. Is the RIAA really THAT antiquated?

(Rhetorical question there. I already know the answer.)

"Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy,’ ” she said."

Stealing something from yourself and giving it back to yourself for free, you mean?

Communism? That might stop people...if it was the 1950s.

This is wrong, plain and simple.

Does this mean any company that sells software that rips CDs is liable? Microsoft better watch out: Sony BMG will pwn Windows Media Player.

I copy every CD I own onto every protable device I own for everyone is my household. I dare the RIAA to come and get me.

Ironically, the Communism poster shows great parallels between the scarcity of physical products and the lack of scarcity of digital products. In Communist economies nothing is privately owned. So downloading mp3s means you are claiming it as your property- which goes against Communism! You don't have the issue of scarcity with digital products- you can just reproduce more as you see fit.

I know it's a parody but I just wanted to point out the irony.

Sadly, this is not the first time they've said something like this. Check in with the EFF to get ideas on what the RIAA is doing and what we can do about it.

On another note, I feel it is offensive to compare Darth Vader to the RIAA. At least Darth Vader had some redeeming qualities.

(groan) I vote we put the RIAA first against the wall when the revolution comes.

@ Daniel

That was my question. To copy a song from a CD to Ipod requires copying to the computer along the way which would leave a image. Wonderful. Guess we can all up and go to jail now.

This is really making me think of the asylum that Douglas Adams wrote about in So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.

Pathetic dinosaurs clinging to their ancient rules and practices. Let them prattle on. They'll be gone in a couple years anyway.

It seems to me that the RIAA serves only one group...record labels, and not the actual artists. Like the1jeffy says, in this age of teh internetz a person can download music directly from a band's website. We don't need the bloated marketting machine anymore.

Aspiring artists no longer have to be bent over a barrel and (bleep have naughty things done to them bleep) because some (bleep nasty person bleep) who only wishes he could sing controls the radio spots and cd production.

And now the fans can choose what they want to hear, instead of being force-fed bad bands over the radio.

The freedom of information means never having to swallow another person's (bleep uh.. I got nothin' bleep).

@ Father Time

I really wish we could do something about this (but we know the RIAA won’t listen to us, any suggestions anyone?)

Stop buying music controlled by them. Support the indie scene and those bands who make the move to leave the RIAA (Radiohead for example).

Money talks. That is why they are fighting so hard on the legal side. They are losing money and they will try everything they can to get that money back.

If everyone stopped feeding them and bought non-RIAA music, they will eventually dry up and die.

@ Daniel

thats what their trying to say with-out actually saying it.

this is one reason I don't even listen to commercial music.

Also, anyone else notice they use an iMac in the picture?

@ Judith Iscariot

i saw the clip and read the story.... WTF!!! is princes problem???

If downloading music and movies makes me a red, so be it.
*wears an ushanka, grabs a bottle of Stolichnaya, and starts playing the USSR National Anthem on LimeWire*

To 2008 and Online Communism!

This is blasphemy! This is madness!

For those asking for a link to larger image, here is the best I found http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.jpg

Thanks, Evan.

Change "pirating MP3's" to smoking pot and downloading to puffing and you have a more effective anti drug ad than the Above the Influence mesh of an PSA.

"Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy,’ ” she said…"


But you OWN the CD. You bought it. So would this mean you are stealing from yourself?

I don't know what's worse- that the RIAA is doing this, or that my step-father thinks that they're in the right on this (he's a computer engineer).

Well that's why "Weird Al" wrote that song it's anti communistic. "So don't download that song!!

Yeah, support the band you like by purchasing their merch and attending the concerts.

Add to that: Some of the files installed DO involve music...

And this has... WHAT to do with vidja gayems?

Silly IRAA
Seriously its illegal to but a cd then put it on your computer so you can transfer it to your ipod The music biz is going to crash and burn if they keep this up
whats next its illegal to buy then listen to it?

check out Weird Al" Yankovic's song thats got a bit to do with this
dont download this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg

Evan Said:

December 31st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
This is blasphemy! This is madness!

This! Is! Sparta!

Had to say it.

Good god, I am stunned beyond credulity!

@wraith

He who shows no mercy, deserves no mercy.

@kitsu_fox

Didn't think of that, that right there should be a good enough defence for it.

@kurisu

What makes you speak such language?

It can be said that the RIAA has shown no mercy and thus deserves no mercy.

Ironically this reminds me to rip the rest of my CDs to my PC.

Fuck you, RIAA.

This does somewhat scare me, think of the ramifications: It is similar to going to the store, buying a bag of macaroni noodles, and using them to make home made macaroni and cheese. It could be said that making macaroni and cheese from scratch is just a polite way of saying 'Stole only the cheese'.

Actually my example made a little more sense because the boxed mac and cheese companies actually lose money vs selling a pre made product. No... its more like if you bought the box of mac and cheese, cooked it... then served it up on more than 1 plate.

I swear, the legal system in this country has gotten so bad it's illegal to breath. If anyone is obeying all the laws day in and day out they are probably already in jail and just don't have any opportunity anymore.

@ Kyle Gagnon

Actually it is more like exceeding the number of servings on the box. Each box of Mac and Cheese says it has four servings (if I am not mistaken). It would be illegal to serve five or more people off of one box of Mac and Cheese. Serving five people with one box of Mac and Cheese is a nice way of saying "stole just one serving"

@ EZK

Oh I so agree the RIAA needs to die. I've been in the music industry and have many friends who still work in it (yes you do have to shower twice a day when you're involved... The slime gets thick). A fact many may not realize is that the RIAA (and another organization I can't recall off the top of my head at the moment) are legally entitled to fees when you broadcast music. The legal definition (at least from the music industry side of the fence) is that broadcasting music is more than one person listening to what is being transmitted. So, obviously radio stations have to pay fees do transmit the music they do to the RIAA. This is also why they're after people who have network based devices to play MP3s over.

...oh yes... They are.

See your family can own legal copies of all the songs and albums, but the RIAA has decided that you're broadcasting when you place those on a network shareable location that those with a wireless connection and a computer can then listen to.

The bottom line is the RIAA believes that for each person listening to a song there should be a song sold. I guess they think they're the software industry now *shrug*

This hasn't been an issue in a past because the record labels have had banner years financially until now. They also had that whole common law and property thing with married couples to deal with.

The sad truth we as consumers understand and the artists understand is that their need to hold on to the dinosaur/cash cow marketing and bs that is the recording industry is why they're losing money.

From my perspective I see the recording industry of the future being RIAA free and corporate record label free in the terms of how they exist now. Many will call me crazy (I am go ahead ;)), but I see companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft becoming the new industry as media companies. Purchasing music on a license basis as we do now with software and video games makes the most sense and fits our needs as consumers. Radio Head as a band has proven this with record sales and profits on their latest album.

I'm with you EZK. Support your artists directly and ask your favorite bands to provide you recorded music you can download from them directly because you don't feel like getting sued by the Emperor and his lawfirm Skywalker, Hut, and Fett from the Deathstar.

That's like saying it's illegal to play a game you own on multiplayer with friends.

IT'S SHARING IT'S ILLEGAL

Damn Commies making us not listen to music!

@ Jeff

The RIAA is only interested in furthering record company profits. They have no other goals. Everything they spew boils down to big business profits. They've made it clear that everything else is secondary to that regardless of their "we're protecting artist's rights" cry everytime they head into court.

The RIAA is just an empty need now. Since some artists are now featuring their music for download to computers now, companies like the RIAA are truly useless now. They are now seen as a bunch of money grumbers doing a job that is seen as obsolete now.
What kills the RIAA is the fact that their CDs are $12 and we only enjoy certain songs on that CD. The internet basically rids this problem with MP3s and file sharing. The artists that make the songs barely receive anything for the CDs, so it is just free money for the RIAA.
They can make as many laws as they want, but most of us will break these laws anyway because they can't arrest us all. There are too many of us.

Whatever happened to the "Fair Use" Policy in the copyright laws, RIAA?

Even though I buy a CD, I have every right to listen to the music on that CD in any format I choose! Even though I have the CD of music I listen to, I prefer to convert them over to MP3 (or a format that my portable player can use) & listen to them that way instead of risking scratch or damaging the CD's. With the CD's that I have... they're really hard to replace!

I wouldn't be too surprised if the Arizona Man files a counter-claim against RIAA for infringing on his rights to Fair Use.