December 31, 2007 -
The Recording Industry Association of America, the Darth Vader of the entertainment industry, is known for targeting average citizens who download music.Now the RIAA has taken a new - and wildly outrageous - position. In a lawsut against an Arizona man who refused to knuckle under to a menacing letter from the RIAA, the organization asserts that it is illegal to transfer music from a CD one has purchased to one's own computer.
From the Washington Post report:
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...
The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," [New York attorney Ray] Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."
Via: Dvorak Uncensored
Comments
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-report-emi-looking-to-slas...
Just let us use our damn products!
But of course. In their fantasy dream world, it IS! Just like listening to music in your car with more than one person, or with the window down, handing your headphones to someone else to "check out this song", or even playing your music at home too loudly, in case you inadvertently put on a concert for your neighbors.
Clinging to an old model indeed. Instead of adapting to new technologies, they'd just rather sue their customers and waste millions of dollars with no recouped losses. No wonder EMI is thinking of ditching them altogether.
Although, the RIAA lost me when they shut down Napster. I had no disposable income then, and they went after their future customers. Now that I have some money, the RIAA won't be getting a cent.
I will gladly pay an artist for his/her music. But I'm not paying for music 4 times (for each media device I own), and I'm not paying giant RIAA exec's way into another yacht. In fact, I suggest going to live shows where the RIAA can't get your money.
Now, they say putting CD's (that I purchased legally in the past) on to my hard drive is stealing? Well I guess that makes EVERY SINGLE computer owner a thief. I cannot fathom the logic they are using. Now your customers are all thieves? Yeah, that's a good business model - for the Mob.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
The illegal cd ripping thing, is just part of the RIAA's policies. They know that it would not hold up in court to just sue fro cd ripping as fair use would have a strong defense there. But of course it has not been tested in court.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-...
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Let me tell you something RIAA, I WILL be downloading every cd I have to my computer, I WILL THEN download those songs to my mp3 player of choice for MY and my wifes enjoyment. TRY to fucking stop us.
Is that RIAA poster on the article for real?
Woot.
Its parody. Funny parody at that.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
That would have been a good threat... back in the 60s! Communism isn't that big a deal anymore, right?
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.
What they really hate is the First Sale doctrine. They want to pretend that it is not a part of copyright case law, because they love the idea of charging someone two or three times for the same product. They believe that if they throw enough money at Congress, they can get the First Sale Doctrine to go away. Judging by the DMCA and all the other legislation since, they may be right...
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.
They question is the shared folder. Is it shared on a personal home network for household use? Or shared for the intent of P2P online distro? I have all my music shared to the home network, so I can stream it to any PC (or my Mac) that I own, to listen in different rooms.
But here's the rub: calling mp3's you've ripped "un-authorized" is the RIAA's way of saying "illegal" because they have precedent in protecting themselves as the only provider of "authorized" copies.
Man, they've taken a (set of) law(s) originally intended to stop people from selling other people's ideas/music/etc as their own a long way, eh? Now it's one step from being illegal to buy music, and listen to it in your car, PC, stereo and mp3 player without buying it 4 times.
The main trouble is the money, even if I was to share music, how is that breaking the law? I'm not pretending to have created it, and I'm not making money fom ideas not of my own creation. But somehow, lost CD sales from the big business makes this issue one of laws. And hell, I was willing to give them that one - I'll buy your music, but I should stll be able to use it however I want.
Try a little experiment, try searching for Myndflame's music (http://www.myndflame.net/)on your P2P pirating lit of choice. You won't find it, or at least not very many. Why? Because they distribute their music at resonable prices to their customer's online. And then they don't care what you do with it. (I realize they aren't "big time" but it's a small example).
Big Business (RIAA is a prime example) just doesn't like the small business talking directly to their customer's model. They like the "sit back and make shitpiles of money off of the same media for 50 years" business model. Too bad customers prefer one of those. Disney is another prime example of this.
Bleccch. I was having decent morning. At least It's only a half day today.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
But making it illegal to download music from a cd to a hardrive? Doesn't that make Windows Media Player, iTunes, and lots of other software products totally illegal?
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.
I steal music from the internet. And, after the Foo Fighters rootkit fiasco, I give out copies of rootkit-free Foo Fighters CDs to everyone I know.
So far as I can tell, the musicians are still rich.
Get bent.
Signed,
Somebody who buys old CDs and rips them to MP3 because it's way more practical than constantly changing discs.
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).
"fiddy" doesn't need another diamond covered Mercedes Benz.
As for the RIAA, yeah, they're quite insane, and I bet Jack Thompson supports this kinda thing, ugh.
I’ve wondered for years why the RIAA never made such a fuss over dual cassette players with the ability to dub (copy) cassette tapes…
I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to recall that somebody did have an issue with dual cassette players, but got smacked down by the courts, as they should have been.
Now if you excuse me, I need to do some sorting/cleaning of the MP3s and videos on my Zen Vision M.
Unfortunately, the musicians still aren't rich from their music. They make their money from the concerts. The RIAA and record labels pretty much get all the money from the CD's. However, the artists are kind of forced to back the RIAA in order to keep their recording contracts. Luckily, many have turned to just distributing their albums on their websites (I know Radiohead does this as does Myndflame as mentioned by the1jeffy). This does cut out the RIAA, but probably not for long. Here's my prediction of future "laws" to be imposed by the RIAA:
1. It will be illegal to record and distribute a song solely over your artist's website.
2. It will be illegal to purchase only one copy of a CD.
3. It will be illegal to purchase any music without some form of copyright protection (like Amazon MP3's).
4. It will be illegal to listen to the CD's you purchased.
5. The only forms of music that can be distributed legally will be on vinyl and eight track.
6. It will be illegal to own any form of microphone that can be connected to a computer as it can be used to record music from a stereo (albeit badly).
I could go on and on but why bother? Happy new year, everyone!
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!
The scary issue is that the RIAA is calling his ripping of cds he owns "Illegal copies" and not focusing on the "He shouldn't be distributing these" part. They're being blatant about it now, I'm assuming because they can attempt piggyback their wacko concept on an illegal action- very much like how a very old court case regarding illegally modifying a shotgun has been used as evidence that supports that the 2nd amendment does not apply to personal private ownership due to the judge stating that he couldn't see how the shotgun pertained to "a well maintained militia".
Wasn't it Lenin who said "Tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth"?
Ironic timing about your post and mine... and the concert aspect...
Copying the content of media (for "backup" purposes) was made legal in the Betamax case circa 1985.
Sony (of Sony/BMG fame) makes MP3 players and ADVERTISES on those devices that you can rip your favorite CDs to MP3 for use on those devices.
How. . . very odd.
(Rhetorical question there. I already know the answer.)
I'd say that's pretty much how the RIAA sees it.
@int0xitive
7. It will be illegal to privately own any music instruments unless you are part of a major because you might play a copyrighted song and others might hear it *ominous sound* for free.
8. It will be illegal to drive with your windows down if you own a car stereo, and if you own said stereo, your car must be insulated so no sound escapes.
Stealing something from yourself and giving it back to yourself for free, you mean?
Technology evolves while the RIAA preaches creationism.
9. It'll be illegal to even have any type of music playing in the background for your home videos. It's already happened.
I'd like to see the RIAA try and swap in/out dozens and dozens of CDs on a computer, especially video game soundtracks from Japan...those things run anywhere from 2 to 4 discs...