When the RIAA loses its mind
By Steve Benen Sunday Dec 30, 2007 7:02pmI appreciate the fact that the music business is in the midst of considerable turmoil. CD sales are abysmal, record companies are losing a lot of money, and music pirating has become fairly routine, prompting thousands of lawsuits from the RIAA against consumers. It’s an industry facing major, system challenges.
But if the music business wants to get back on track, this definitely isn’t the way to do it.
[I]n an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: 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.”
It’s as if the industry is anxious to destroy any remaining goodwill it may have left.
Login or Register to post comments.
Considering how many people own iPods and other Mp3 devices if the RIAA were to win this fight that would make almost everyone a criminal.
The more militant the RIAA et.al. get the happier I am for my immensely massively huge collection of music. In honor of this latest attempt to stomp on the individual I think I'll download a few discographies.
Arrr, me hearties!
Never going to by a CD, Tape, Album or Eight Track again. I have have it all right at my fingertips and won't need the RIAA ever again. Sorry Suckers hope you enjoyed the ride.
This would mean it was illegal back in the 70s for me to record a vinyl LP (that I owned)onto a cassette tape. Not that I ever did that. But I'm just saying...sounds like bullshit to me.
Ray Beckerman: 'The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright.'
Exactly. Without distributing copies to others, all Howell has done is make personal backups. In other words, without distribution to others, there is no copyright violation. I sometimes wish it had been called distribution rights rather than copyright; it would save a lot of confusion.
Anyway, is the RIAA *really* making this argument? This is such a settled principle of copyright law that I can't quite believe they would rest their case on an argument against it.
I study technology right now and this article makes no sense. How would the record companies find out when you rip the digital data from a CD to an MP3 player on your computer? There is no possible way to find you unless you actually share your files via limewire, kazaa, etc. (which is illegal). Lets stop the insanity and not post articles that are intellectually dishonest.
I guess I should line up for fingerprinting, and arrest. I always port my CDs to my hard drive as mp3s, and then load them on my mp3 player.
I won't get an iPod due to the proprietary format. I have purchased music from iTunes, and with the permission of the artist (and I can prove that) 'convinced' the mp4 to be an mp3 so I can play it on my mp3 player.
RIAA should ditch their Cretaceous age business model, and join the real world.
greed in the age of boosh!
whoodathunkit?!
EC @ 4:
No actually, because those formats were analog. the RIAA and DMR are against digital copying and archiving.
The recording industry used to have a different opinion on personal use. It removed the following statement from its website (but you can still read it on archive.org):
Seems to me they are intent on committing suicide.
RIAA is run by idots. Ok, CD sales are down, so lets further hurt sales by trying to get courts to agree it is a really bad idea, even criminal, to buy and use CDs.
I love watching the greedy paranoid on parade, marching straight into oblivion.
The sony suit as precedent should end this garbage.
Wow, they've gone completely insane. Over the past several decades, I spent a boatload of cash on the appox. 1500 CDs I have in my personal collection because I believe in supporting the artists who provide the soundtrack to my life. But the RIAA is giving itself a horrible reputation and misrepresenting the artists by pushing these ridiculously unreasonable rules. I hope more and more artists are able to market and sell their music independently on the internet so they can cut these b*stards out of the loop once and for all.
TheTick900 @ 6:
so you're the expert now?
I've said it before over the years and I'll say it again-Fuck the RIAA. Shrivel up and die. Roast in hell-no hell is too good for you.
How Long Does The RIAA Get To Abuse The Legal System?
that will never stand up in court.
bad move, riaa.
Nowonmai @ 9:
That's not clear from this article at all. Either way, I think they're barking up the wrong tree.
In many ways the RIAA reminds me of the MPAA and its rating system. While technically "representing" the motion picture industry, the MPAA ratings board has been shown to be woefully out of touch with those in the industry who actually make films and studios and filmmakers often have to do battle with the ratings board.
The lawyers and other "suits" in the RIAA seem woefully out of touch with the music industry itself. I doubt many of them even know how an iPod works, for example. When the iTunes Music Store started, Apple made deals with the various music labels that specified how many copies of what could be made. The RIAA lawyers seem unaware of this. They've just been told by the labels, "Do something about piracy" and they've gone off the deep end with little understanding of computers, MP3 players or previous court rulings on digital rights.
rekroc @ 13:
that is exactly the point. most contracts strip away the intellectual property rights and leave artists with small commissions at best. a few, like prince, can break away, but most artists depend on concerts.
they are a massive, massive industry head. all the rhetoric about "the RIAA are idiots, they need to change their business model, you can't stop the technology, bla bla bla" is pointless, because the heads of the industry head known as RIAA... have deep contractual - and damn near familial ties - to old, stoic ways. record scouts. recording studio guys. mastering engineers. shipping. wrapping. manufacturing. distribution. marketing. old stoic teams, of old, loyal players.
the RIAA isn't going to change.
media, is a form of information. its a different type of information. its not transmitting "here's a picture" or "here's news" or "here's an email"... its transmitting "here's somethign inspiring".
but its still information. and we live in an information age. the RIAA needs to, in order to survive, and evolve with the new distribution means of information in the age of information. but it would involve major infrastructural changes within both the leadership positions at the RIAA, and the very foundations of the industry they represent. and that would involve the current crop of leaders and practices step aside.
which ain't gonna happen. so the RIAA's pretty much going to have to go bankrupt before this happens.
thats why these kind of lawsuits don't surprise me. because when people are about to fall heavily into debt, they start to do desperate things.
however, the ability for the "information" or "art" to be transmitted is as old as freedom itself. the RIAA doesn't recognize this... their attempts to "send a lesson" with these cases, will only result in hastening the impending revolution... and ensuring the revolution is just a little bit messier for the folks in the old power tiers.
the whole thing's funny for me to watch. I'm a DJ though. I buy lots of records. so... - I'm kind of avoiding it. for the most part. but its funny watching the RIAA flounder.
It looks like the corporations and RIAA are able to bring frivolous lawsuits to tie up our courts, but a sertously injured human can't. They have to go to arbitration before a corporate friendly judge.
are they gonna charge us for listening to the radio too....oh...yeah.....neverind.
Impeach Cheney
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
Uh oh, I have over 6000 songs on my iTunes..........
Remember, you don't know me.
The article is a bit misleading. Although the RIAA is saying that ripping your cd is making an "unauthorized copy", this is not what they are suing him for. They are suing him because he is sharing his cd collection.
This is complete insanity. The iPod point is correct.
Such short-term attack strategy. In an industry that is already losing consumers as a result of alternative consumption methods and increasingly abysmal mainstream artists, it isn't winning any brownie points with the consumer base to chase every last penny litigiously that they could be getting out of an artist who once sold eight million units and can now barely sell one million.
The corporations seem to think that by making every American citizen in to a criminal, you can just take their money and put them in jail. No wonder the privatised prison industry is booming - if corporations like the RIAA got their way, we WOULD all be criminals, we would all be working for the prison with their lower-than-minimum wage, we would all be convicts with no right to vote for representatives and it would be illegal for us to leave. Wouldn't that be every thing the corporations ever dreamed of...
Does this mean I must pay iTunes for digital tracks now and I can't use the CDs I already payed for? So much for microsoft being the monopoly! This is BS. I bought hundreds of CDs in the 90's and have them all setup in eJukebox. I refuse to buy them again and refuse to use crappy iTunes. I already got my tunes setup super nice with eJukebox. I am not sharing my mp3 with anyone so I will not pay for them again!!!
This is the gist of what I posted about this topic on another site:
None of this would even be an issue if the record industry wasn't utterly RIPPING FOLKS OFF. They are using a 25 year old storage medium (CDs came out in 1982), and are charging the same bloody price now for them that they were the medium was first released, except they are now using INFERIOR versions of the technology, that are of lower quality. The RIAA is losing money, because people don't want to pay preposterous prices for a product that everybody knows costs literally pennies apiece to manufacture, box and ship. If the RIAA had simply lowered the cost of the CD medium (as has occurred with every other medium that has come and gone), people would be vastly more willing to pay the price. CDs should, realistically, be at most $5, and that is being incredibly generous to the recording industry. More like $1-3 per CD (and the RIAA would be SWIMMING in $$$ in such a scenario). The same goes for downloads. If the RIAA would charge $1 (MAYBE $2) to download a record, people would PAY THEM FOR SUCH A SERVICE rather than download for free. Instead, they got (far too) greedy, and they are paying the price.
As for their ludicrous assertion that you cannot copy music you've legally purchased, and in turn store it on other forms of media for your own personal use, is simply never going to fly. So, no one anywhere can make their own homemade CD mixes? No one can put play lists for parties, etc, on to a CD-R? No one can transfer their records to their MP3 players? No one can simply archive all of their music so they have backups should something occur? Their are countless legal reasons falling well within fair use guidelines for copying and storing musical recordings you've legally purchased.
Seriously, RIAA? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good f*cking luck with your delusions of grandeur. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You made your beds, you imbeciles! Now, YOU get to LIE IN THEM.
Here's to hoping that the recording industry folds, and artists begin the process of controlling THEIR intellectual property themselves. Oh, and making the bulk of the $$$ on said intellectual property. Not some idiots in suits who chew people up and spit them out for a couple bucks, and perhaps a blowjob or roll in the hay.
kerplunk @ 23:
almost 172,000......
The Big Labels are screwed. To Top Heavy. To Corporate. Poor decisions, inept planning, ludicrous, ill-conceived concepts, total absence of creativity and imagination, over inflated salaries, . . . . .etc, etc.
That sound they hear out there is reality knocking on the door.
Here is a list of companies represented in the lawsuit. I encourage you to join me in boycotting these PIGS!!!!
Virgin
Sony BMG
RCA
Capitol
Arista
Interscope
Warner Bros
Geffen
A&M
Polydor
Universal
G-Unit
Aftermath
Shady
Tennman
EMI
Blacksmith Records
Brute-Beaute Records
Festival Mushroom Records
Heiress Records
Machine Shop Recordings
Maverick Records
PBS Records
Playmaker Music
Record Collection
Reprise Records
RuffNation Records
Sire Records
SoBe Records
Teleprompt Records
Top Dawg ENT
Word Records
L.A. Confidential @ 31:
Bingo bingo bingo.
The next wave is going to see music distributed with very little in the way of the middle man. Hell - we're ALREADY seeing this start to happen with some bands; give it a year or two and a few giant corporate crashes; and we'll see the artists, not the executives, putting out the music.
I think that'll be much healthier for music as a whole; right now, even relatively creative artists are getting badly bottlenecked in the rush for 'the hit'.
"Fair use" is anathema to the entertainment industry. This is all part of the corporate perversion of all copyright law. Their model is that we should be forced to pay for everything we watch and/or listen to in perpetuity.
I'm expecting Disney to be allowed to renew the copyright on Shakespeare any day now.
Once the Hard Core Corporates buy out the original innovators forget it it's over. Thats whats happened to the Music Industry.
I'd actually read about this absolutely preposterous claim a couple of weeks ago on a tech site, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't become more widely reported on until just now. I feel the same way now as I did back then:
This is the last straw. I was generally avoiding buying anything at all to do with RIAA-member labels, but I will never again spend one penny on anything that goes to them. I may well buy CDs--and "illegally" rip them into my iPod--but only if they're used and the RIAA doesn't see one damn cent of my money.
As for anything new, it's all-digital all the way, and ONLY from non-member labels.
It's really pretty sad--the RIAA and their distribution mindset were created of an era when it cost huge amounts of money to record an album, huge amounts of money to produce records from that recording, and a huge distribution network of stores to actually get those records into the hands of consumers.
All of those things have changed--essentially anybody can get their hands on the equipment to produce a decent recording, anybody has the means to produce an "album" (be it CD or digital-only), and as of the iTunes era anybody has the means to make their music available to anyone in the world. AND they get to keep essentially all of the profits.
The member labels of the RIAA had their chance to change their business model--they could have reorganized themselves into organizations that funded up-and-coming bands and advertised them for a small cut of the distribution profits. Apple was the first example of a company willing to do that--they took a relatively modest cut of the gross to cover upkeep of their system, but gave a large percentage thereof to the copyright holder--and there are many others now, or you can even go totally indie and sell through your own site.
But that would have meant changing your business model and taking a hit in the ludicrous percentage of already-inflated gross profits from physical album sales, so instead they've done everything available to them to make it hard to do what people actually want to do with their music.
Too late, guys. Screw you--I'm buying indie.
CoIntelPro @ 12:
Could you elaborate. Maybe a link to an article?
JJohnson @ 33:
Very true.
Dumbasses. What, they want to kill the mix tape? Today's mix tape is tomorrow's high school memory (and the year after that, and the year after that, 40 years from that according to research on music preferences as people age). I have largely sworn off corporate music anyway, too damn formulaic and most of it is crap anyway. The occasional exception, say Fiona Apple, has been about the only corporate stuff I buy anymore. I buy a lot of really high caliber albums, but today's recording media allows these guys to put out there own stuff without having to sell their souls to the RIAA. Tim O'Brien and Darrell Scott recorded "Real Time" in Scott's living room in one day, and the Redbird folks recorded theirs with a singe analog mike and an old DAT in three days. RIAA is dying, and it is about time. They don't just go after file sharing, they go after people wanting to throw house concerts (cuz they own the songs that are inevitably covered by lowly non-stadium artists). The sooner the RIAA blows its brains out the sooner we have more music to choose from as far as I'm concerned. Buttheads. And for God's sake, protect internet radio!!
I use to by vinyl at $5.99 an entire album. I haven't purchased a hard copy of an album since the Smithereens 11 back in 1989. When you realize how much the actual artist are getting screwed out of, why would you. They make their money by touring. Them and Ticketmaster with all the up fees. You want to support an artist, go to a concert. And now days half the shit they put out is exactly that..SHIT. Then you have bands like Metallica who sue their own fans. I get most all my music online and it's mostly obscure bands or artist. The crap they're trying to sell us now isn't even worth the $9.99 on Itunes. Go with independent artist. The stuff that doesn't get airplay. It's real music and not controlled by the suits.
Today's American Corporation Mission Statement identifies the customer as Enemy #1.
Corporate America knows that their business model works. Americans love being despised and hated by the world. Their voting record proves it!
JJohnson @ 33:
I completely agree. I'm sure Radiohead lost a lot a friends in the music industry. Good for them. A few years back Pearl Jam tried to tour without Ticketmaster and failed. Something tells me if they tried again it might just work.
So does that mean the "music" police can confiscate MP3 players and IPods so that they can checked for copied material? This is ridiculous. How would anyone know what CD's have been copied to someone's computer?
Greg @ 40:
Ever head of KEXP.org. Check it out. Some stuff gets airplay.
Nowonmai @ 7:
Actually, if we follow past precedent, it was probably legal in the Cretaceous.
FWIW, slashdot posted a partial retraction to it's description of the same link. In short, the RIAA is NOT suing for ripping CDs to disk, nor are they calling it illegal. They just decribe it as "unauthorized copying" which sounds harsh, but actually means nothing (eg I'm not authorized to convert a prius to full electric, but if I do, Toyota can't do squat about it).
Note that this post is not to be interpretted as pro-RIAA, rat bastard, pig dogs that they are. I'm just sayin'...
Link to retraction w/embeded link to original
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/30/1835210
Well as a musician I will say this is bullshit. This lawsuit is not going to work out... Even if RIAA wins (which it probably won't on the merits) it loses.. On all levels, not just the public relations front which will be bad enough. That mp3/ipod etc digital genie thing is out of the bottle. You can probably thank Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, big blue and all the rest of the computer industry for pissing on your parade... long ago. And no amount of huffing and puffing and spending profits to make corporate lawyer bank accounts that much fatter is going to stuff it back in.
Trying to get millions of music listeners to comply with the RIAA desires has about as much chance of success as getting all law abiding citizens who own guns for home defense or any other purpose be they NRA nuts or just Ma and Pa living in a bad neighborhood to give those guns up will work... Hint, they won't give up their guns, and milllions of kid ain't going to stop storing music on p.c.'s or any other storage device... What a waste of time and energy. Do yourselves a favor and cut the losses which are going to continue to stack up with this approach right now. Just stop.
Personally, if they want to win this thing, long term they should give up this legal spitting angle which is only driving their business model into the ground that much faster as they piss off more and more of their former and maybe future customers. And they aren't really endearing themselves to the musician community with this strategy either. What they ought to do probably is call up marketing and start pushing the audio fidility angle in some kind of way. Get ahead of this thing by reminding everyone that yea, you can download most anything and play it thru any of the current toys people buy, but the sound quality is going to be less than decent. I'm not sure how to work the angle exactly. That why they need to call up marketing. Those cats have degrees, put em to work figuring out a good selling angle and stop fighting the customer base. That's never going to work out. Marketing put you into this mess really, let marketing get you out again.
When I was growing up, speakers and fidility of the listening experience was pretty much way up there on the desirability list, and something like a Bose system was pretty close to state of the art for a listening experience. There were many other good to great sound systems but Bose just comes to mind off the top of my head. Copying music wasn't the in thing or even an issue to sweat the load over. The quality of the listening experience was the big deal and the quality of the sound system was key to that. The better the system, the better the experience.
You'll never get any of todays devices to recreate that kind of listening experience. These days the audio fidility experience pretty much sucks. No real high end or low end, just a lot of mid-range mush and that's really the only range to do a mix at given the sorry state of speaker technology in p.c's as well as any of the little portable carry around devices kids listen to. I believe there is a certain physical limitation to all these little speakers that better digital electronics just ain't going to be able to get around. That's why real audiophiles still dig analog.
Remind people that there is more to this listening to music then an ability to copy it. Frankly I'm not even sure a typical person of gen x would even recognize the difference between a music experience of an ipod and a good old fashion Sansui system these days unless you sat them down and showed them at this point. There is a whole generation of music lovers who have been raised on junk listening technology who probably don't have the slightest clue what a good speaker system can actually sound like and do for a recording.
But really, somehow, someway, if not the listening experience angle, then the suits sweating over all this really need to change strategies somehow, need to change the context of the argument altogether because this approach isn't going to win. It won't do anything but bleed money out of their pockets and guess what... The average teen really doesn't give a shit about the RIAA' wants and needs. They are going to keep downloading and they are going to keep sharing and you people might as well go to the beach and try to stop the ocean from coming ashore with a teaspoon......You'll have about as much of a chance to succeed at that as you do trying to fight this battle... Give it up RIAA, it's over you have already lost the download war such as it might be... Give it up because you're just going to be toast if you don't................JD
I bet they wished they never phased out vinyl now. :-D
After first installing Windows XP, it took me months before I even realized that every audio CD I put into my PC was being ripped to the hard drive BY DEFAULT. If this were me, I'd countersue Microsoft with a "Bill Gates made me do it" defense.
RIAA has really screwed up on this one. I'm a professional musician and just attended a national conference, where there was an excellent clinic on copyright law. They have it annually for updates and it is given by an expert. The RIAA now has over 17,000 lawsuits waiting to happen - about 750 are filed each month. The message was - if you download illegally it is no longer a matter if 'if' you're caught, but 'when'.
If you are caught and choose to fight it as this guy did, you need to be prepared to prove that EVERYTHING on your computer is legal. Sounds like someone may have ripped some CDs that he no longer has in his possession.... But that wouldn't matter. If he even has one CD left it could leave room for reasonable doubt in court.
It is still legal to rip your CD to your computer for your personal use. You can make mix CDs (for your personal use, not gifts) and drop tunes to your iPod. What they really want to do, at least until now, is make you pay for your downloads. That was the whole point of forming the RIAA.
And by the way, if you do receive one of those lawsuit letters you now have the option to go to their website and pay settlement costs (about $2000 to $4000) by credit card.
Scary.
The RIAA, and every THING they do, is aimed at helping the media gain control of the internet, in order to charge fee's for everything we now get for free, including any streaming audio from radio stations.
They are also the lapdog to preserve the steely grip of the recording industry on the artists.
Many an indie Americana Artist has shown the RIAA the middle finger, and profited from their own efforts.
These are exciting times, as we watch dinosaurs choke on their own vomit and indie artists thrive and grow without the constraints the labels put on them.
Fuck the RIAA, and the recording industry, in general.
The RIAA, are a PITIFUL attempt by the 1% Media Ownership of this world, to aid and abet in the consolidation of power, control and profiteering of anything aural or visual.
The RIAA, like the doomed dinosaurs of the past, are already dead. They just don't know yet, we are the meteor.
RIP Old School Media And RIAA. We won't miss ya much, though . . .
All you insiders like John and Howie I'm SURE are gonna lament I don't have a clue, yadda yadda yadda.
But like in politics, and music IS politics folks . . . . like in politics, music is subject to all the foibles our republic has been hit with in the degradation of the middle class, the consolidation of power, control and wealth in the industry, and the development of a 1% mentality from the recording studio's to the exec's who own and control the very souls and lives of the artists.
And the development of the internet has given the artist INCREDIBLE power to develop their own channels of bookings, recordings, and distribution of materials, cutting out all of the middle men of the 1%.
In the meantime, the 1% continue to produce pure crap, air pure crap, and control what gets radio airplay. N no one listens to the radio much anymore, cept for community based and college based stations, cuz it's all the same 4-6 formats, and all the same boring and talentless artists who sold out any semblance of art they had, long ago.
So in the New Year, here's to the idie's, here's to the slow and painful and final death of RIAA, and the recording industry in general, as it's structured. And here's to the freedom of the internet to continue the most important revolution since 1776. *G*
The corporatist's smell us, sense us, and are getting to where they are afraid of us.
Progressives. On the march. On the internet. In the music. It's like the streets almost don't matter anymore, ya know?
*G*
EC @ 4:
LOL, when I was a kid, I used to do that, in my walk-man
why don't the record labels just evolve with digital distribution?
The same will happened where Hard-drives and Cable providers are going to replace video rentals. Instead of fighting technology just adapt to it.
a CD with 720mb space is ancient technology and the jewel cases are wastes of space. Regulatory digital distribution is the way to evolve.
I ripped all of my CDs to the computer about two years ago. All legally purchased - about 4,500 songs.
This is getting ridiculous - couple the RIAA's actions with the TV networks' unwillingness to budge with its writers, and you might start seeing the end of 'traditional' delivery systems as we know them. People are fed up with the old days and their draconian rules.
kerplunk @ 23:
Thanks, kerplunk. Only 7 more days until the judiciary committee meeets again, and a little over 170,000 signups. Please sign up if you haven't already and urge bloggers, friends and commentwers to take up the call. Wexler wants at least 250,000 signups but, if the blogosphere made a push, a million is not out of reach. The choice is simple. Put the truth of cheney's lies before the American people and let the pols take the consequences or hide it all under a blanket of excuses.
The irony is the way music is sold has already changed and the recording industry won't accept it. I guess it is hard for them to realize that the recording industry will soon be run by one company: Apple. iTunes will eventually wipe out the brick and mortar stores. Sound strange? Remember it took a very short time for the CD to wipe out vinyl. Downloads are wiping out the CD. That is a fact. iTunes is the most successful way for the industry to make money on downloads. The others like the Zune marketplace are also rans. The tie in with the iPod assures iTunes continued monoploy. It is obvious that Steve Jobs learned from Bill Gates how to set up a monoploy. Fortunately the iTunes monopoly is a lot better than the way the industry wants to sell you music. Don't want to pay $15 for a CD? Buy it for $10 on iTunes. Only want several tracks? Buy them ala carte on iTunes. Legally share the music on several computers and burn multiple copies legally? iTunes. You would think that the record companies would embrace a model that is friendly to the consumers and still gives them lots of profit. (Apple supposedly only makes 10 cents on the dollar) but no they keep trying to fool with the formula. How stupid are these people?
TheTick900 @ 6:
How does the RIAA know? I'll hazard a guess...
about two months ago my ISP called me, saying I had a virus on my computer. They demanded that I fix the problem or risk losing my service. I fixed the problem and then received an email from them, thanking me for my cooperation.
If they can tell my computer has a virus I would bet dollars to donuts they can find media files and tell someone else.
CoIntelPro @ 19:
I know. Unfortunately, many people just don't have the time to go out and see their favorite artists perform live. I used to attend concerts at small clubs regularly, but becoming a father to a child with special needs pretty much put an end to that.
And there are many artists out there who'd love to receive a good, steady income from their music without having to be perpetually on tour.
Bud @ 56:
Yup, that's what they can do now. RIAA won the test cases in several courts and now your ISP has to give them information about users when requested. They usually get their info from monitoring sites that offer illegal downloads, but some ISPs are getting a little itchy and are beginning to monitor their own customer base.
Why not? Bush does so it must be OK.
It all started with Metallica, those whiny bitches! :)
I'm a musician and have played, co-wrote and produced on 6 albums. I'd rather give my music out
as a promotion rather than trying to sell it. I can attract more listeners that way and those listeners
are more likely to come to my live shows of which I am getting paid for. I'd rather promote art instead
of some product in a shiny package for the mass morons to buy. Where are the Jimi Hendrix's and
Eddy Van Halen's who have reinvented the music wheel these days? Who are the record companies
and format radio stations to tell us what's good music or not. Most of it is crap now anyway except
for a rare few...
The mp3s in question were put in a shared folder for KaZaa. Whether he actually shared them or not for for the RIAA to prove.
Also, do not download music or any other files from bit torrent sites. This type of downloading is considered
sharing and distribution. My ISP (Time Warner Cable/Road Runner) is now monitoring all their customers for
this such downloading...
You know... how many times do I have to buy the same freakin' "albums" in so many freakin' formats!? Now that the power to change formats is in the consumers' hands, they cry foul! Me thinks the RIAA owes me a pound of flesh!
What is happening in the music industry is that recordings are slowly but surely becoming merely promotional material. At the same time live performance is now where the money is. That is everything from name acts making hundreds of thousands per show to local bands now making hundreds per show. In the end this is good for everyone but the recording industry and companies like clear channel. The lawsuits are not much more than attempts to patch a leaking pipe, in the face of the dam bursting upstream.
The RIAA have decided on their course. In the current climate, they're the big, healthy, strong, bullying Dinosaurs.
The dinosaurs were king for millions of years. But who's going to bet on them against these small, squishy little mammals that are running around their feet at the moment?
Full disclosure: I work in the music industry but don't make my money directly from recordings or distribution. I have, however, made money from bands who have achieved mainstream success via "non-traditional" methods of distributing their work.
I hope the RIAA goes back in time and tries to sue every music fan who sat by the radio recording the Top 40 every Sunday afternoon. The industry heads have truly forgotten what it is that makes this bastard of all bastard industries go round.
This is going to keep on going until:
1) The RIAA and their shysters start losing cases. BIG cases. And in states where such losses will cost them MILLIONS.
2) The state bar associations start disbarring the shysters for their legal tactics.
3) The RIAA are convicted for violations of the RICO act.
Nothing short of those three things will stop them.
TheTick900 @ 6:
Last September NBC changed it's media player. The agreement to use the player, and watch online episodes, included a provision that allowed NBC to scan you computer for illegal downloads. I don't download music, or file-share, but the whole idea of giving a corporation carte blanch to tip-toe through my hard drive, well, I declined the agreement. They didn't have "When hell freezes over!" as an option.
Those software agreements are thousands of bullshit words, and almost inpossible to read, but I pays to at least scan them of stuff like "scan you hard drive" insanity.
Hello!!
Someone need to tell the RIAA that this is no longer 1999. This already came up, and they lost. Period. Anyone remember:
Rip. Mix. Burn.
Someone needs to fork over the cash for private investigators to collect evidence on EVERY single major record head, and EVERY RIAA lawyer. No, no, nothing smarmy (we're better than they are), but I am CERTAIN that each one of the has made or used "mixed tapes" from vinyl or CD in the past. The is yet another attempt at 'separate justice' where the rich are absolved while the poor are leaned on to pay out, guilty of a crime or not (or be put through hell for years in court, missing work or maybe getting fired because of the accusation). They learned NOTHING from the success of iTunes and the failure so far of HDDVD/Bluray.
We also need more artists to have the balls not to participate in this. It's not "new news" anymore. You know this going into the contract negotiations, I think fans are starting to expect no copy protection -- no stupid CDs that ruin your computer optical drive when you just want to play the damn thing, or blow out your speakers if you make a copy for the car or clumsy kid. Or installs a rootkit virus, like Sony.
"Oh, like, I didn't know my label would do such a thing..." is starting to wear thin as an excuse. The irony is that the greedier they are, the more they loose ground. Music and movies are a cornerstone of America... too bad the RIAA and MPIAA will kill those industries due to punishing honest fans again and again and again and...
Spying on, intimidating, and stalking little a 10 year old girl and her disabled mother doesn't help your case either. Calling the school pretending to be her relative so that you can corner her alone and take her deposition? Wow. That's just... a new low, even for these kinds of lawyers. Anyone that wasn't rich that did that would be strung up immediately. Creepy bastards.
That's truly insane and stupid, even by the RIAA's standards... Was it illegal for me, as a 12-year-old, to make tapes of my records to listen to them on my first Walkman (which weighed about 7 pounds)?
This is a last ditch effort to save a dying industry! Like the Kodak film, we no longer need a recording industry! A musician can write, record and sell him work on his PC and to hell with a middle man that was going to cheat him/her out of their fare share anyway!
Hudson @ 68:
In their minds, YES!
We may believe that their case has no merit, but every case comes down, not to truth or reasonable outcome, but to the arguments of the lawyers and the power-money behind them. The plaintiff, in this case, is an overwhelming legal and political force.
Big moneyed plaintiffs, though often losing in jury trials, almost always win on appeal at a later date. We seldom, if ever, hear about the many reversals that favor the mega-corporations over average citizens.
Capitalism. You wanted it. Now you got it.
Poncias Pilate @ 70:
Did you wash your hands today?
The RIAA may want to go back an reread the results of their sueing Diamond Multimedia over the original Rio MP3 players in 1998
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/MP3/rio.html
TheTick900 @ 6:
if i lend you a cd i have purchased, have i broken the law?
if i let you listen to a cd, record, tape or mp3 that i have purchased, have i broken the law?
the record, tv and movie companies are still living in the predigital dark ages
i havent been to a record store in the past 4 years...and most likely will never go again
instead of going after customers, these guys need to buck up, go digital and deal with the inevitable piracy (most of which comes from within the industry)
and are you studying technology or tech law...if the former, you dont know shit, so stfu
happy new year
I could care less if the whole music industry went totally down the tubes. Greedy, overpaid executives, big-name artists, and shareholders have made the recording industry as much a joke as professional sports has become in America.
There was once a time when the consumer actually got their money’s worth. Most vinyl LPs contained a full package with inserts, posters, artwork, and lyrics – all viewable without the use of a magnifying glass. Today everything from the quality of music to the quality of the CD itself is being compromised in the name of profits. Music that could be distributed at phenomenal quality is instead being sold with fidelity comparable to FM radio or cassettes of the 70’s. Pay more - get less, it makes no sense to me. If I want to transfer a high quality recording into a compressed format for use on a personal recorder and headset, this should be my prerogative - but to try to sell me inferior pre-compressed music online without the bells and whistles of packaging and artwork is a total rip-off.
If we never had to hear another Disney created, American Idol spurned, boy-band of the year “artist”, or whatever the latest garbage that the corporate thieves of the recording industry is pushing as the latest “hot sound” is in pop music – the world would be a better place.
Thanks to the falling costs of studio-quality recording technology as well as the growth of the internet, more and more REAL musicians are able to expose and promote their talents without the need of these recording industry bandits. In my mind, any musicians who would sell-out their integrity and allow themselves to be “molded” into whatever image the record label feels will make them most profit, all for the chance at being the industry’s latest "one-hit wonder" don’t deserve the recognition as real musicians to begin with.
With the realization that they are better off doing it on their own, even long established bands such as the Eagles have bailed on their record company and the thieves that run them. I hope they are an example of things to come.
Call me old-school, but thanks to Record Labels and their the focus on “looks” and image, music videos, dancing, and concert extravaganzas – America’s true appreciation for music has all but died.
btw....every computer now sold has a dvd burner as a standard feature
there are tons of retail dvd ripping software on the market
the riaa better get with it...the future is now
fuck the man...we control the media
fyi, two new major films have been pirated online in their dvd screener form....that means an insider released them....the studios are pirating themselves
whahahahahah
I can't remember the last CD in a traditional storefront i bought from any of the labels in this suit.
They are dead. It's over.Go home you fat old balding pigs. Talk about un-cool! Good riddance!
These RIAA people are high.
What incentive does this provide people to not download stuff illegally?? I mean, OK, so if people buy their CDs legally and then make MP3s, now they are breaking the law?? Yet, people face the very same penalty if they decide to just skip the buying the CD legally step and just download the music?? Duh.
I ripped my CD's a long time ago when I owned them. I haven't seen a CD in years.
The RIAA is getting antsy since the iTunes model is going to kill all physical media eventually. Change is hard.
Lars Ulrich can suck my fat one.
Uncle Joe @ 76, yeah, I know one of the movies you are talking about . I thought it was a 'telecine' copy, but it was a DVD screener....ahem. from what i hear. It has to be an inside job.
why should I buy a CD for one or two new songs and re-issues? The major artists have become lazy and the Labels, greedy. The Majors lost me after my acquisition of my fifth copy of songs I already own
I think I flagged myself for moderation with 's*ck my..'
Shlomo @ 71:
? This isn't capitalism. Capitalism isn't a solitary form of government, nor a religion (as the neocons seem to believe). True capitalism doesn't exist without healthy government regulation either. Capitalism doesn't make or enforce laws. Capitalism shouldn't serve as the judge in court cases. Corruption may confuse things, but then corruption is the problem. Not our economic system. And boy is our government corrupt these days. And incompetent, as much of the RIAA thuggery shows.
I'm not sure that the courts of the communists are any better. In fact, I'm sure they are worse (oh say for things like this). Still, I'd rather have capitalism back as an economic system, and a balanced three-brach republic federal government balanced with state's rights. I think something like that is so crazy, it just... might... work! But then I'm still trying to figure out how we ended up with Mussolini's utopia of a corporate fascist state, yet none of the trains run on time. Or in most cases, no trains run at all! Huh.
And TheTick9000 needs to listen to Arthur (I say, that's a joke, son). Advocating an unjust law, simply because you think it might be hard to enforce anyway is just plain crazy!
Not to mention the "the government should install cameras in each home... I mean, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear" angle. That's a whole pile of dangerous thinking there.
While it will likely not stand up in court, that's like teaching abstinence . . . you just get more sex with that and you'll just get more illegal downloads with the other. The record industry can just keep shooting itself in the foot I suppose.
Funny how Sony, the company which designed, built and licensed the very hardware and software to make this even possible, is listed among the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, my computer playing my music with my electricity in my own home is somehow legal fodder for the music industry thought police.
You see what's going on here; they start with the high profile 'Napster's, then little by little it's 'divide and conquer.' Criminalize the legally underrepresented. extend their reach further and further into totalitarian precedent, all the while bending, warping and eventually abandoning their previous legal rationales to suit the litigatory interests of the present.
At this point and using these same legal arguments, there's really no reason for them not to sue anyone who's ever bought a CD or DVD burner.
If you take this suit to a logical extreme, it would make the Itunes Business Model Illegal. I buy songs from Itunes for about a buck, but when I move the purchase to my IPOD, do I have "an unauthorized copy"? It may sound absurd, considering that the original portion of this pertained to moving a copy from cd to a shared folder on a hard drive. Despite the clarification that the suit against this person was for sharing, when the story may have applied to moving it from cd to shared folder for file sharing purposes. But, I'm not putting it past RIAA to have gone to the low level of suing someone for simply using his own personal licensed copy on 2 different mediums. If what's been posited here is true, then they went too far and now are back tracking because the egg on their face could undermine every claim they file. But in court, it would be interesting to find out if "Fair Use" applied to someone converting from cd to IPOD? If that were "unauthorized" or illegal, then 90% of the IPODS would be used illegally. There are many folks who want to buy songs legally on-line, but can't get their favorite artist on Itunes. An example of that would be Garth Brooks. Fans of Garth would likely buy the cd at Best Buy (or Walmart) and then convert it to the IPOD. I can see someone who has gone out of his way to buy Garth's latest, being sued by the RIAA, when he/she could have pirated it anonymously at a ciber cafe, piped it over to portable storage and converted later. Meanwhile, since the ISP's now seem to be monitoring us in violation of the 4th Amendment, folks who have gone out of their way to be on the right side of the law, have become criminals. How very nice...Welcome to 1984. Orwell was just about 24 years early.
they're doing this because they're desperate. even a story
that's flat out ludicrous on its face will still
get headlines, and people will still see those headlines and
get scared of being sued.
that's all they really want.
Well, they are unauthorized copies!
The spin is this:
Of course the RIAA does not want people trans-coding and duplicating their music media! It's better for them if people just pay each time for each kind of use. In fact, they would prefer pay to play and just get rid of the media altogether.
That gets rid of pesky right of first sale too. (used media, which they are working on making difficult to exchange)
The law, however, strikes a balance. It's perfectly ok to trans-code and duplicate, whether they like it, or authorize it or not.
Really, distribution and intent to distribute are the issues here. Ripping the CD's is just sensationalism, aimed at getting any negative associated with the activity as they can.
The real beauty is they've already stated the rip is ok --even encouraged! Did it in court and several public venues too. Dumbasses.
RIAA did what?! Sorry, I was too busy ripping CDs to pay attention . . .
JJohnson @ 33:
I'm also looking forward to those days.
JGabriel @ 5:
But wait, it gets worse! Since the defendant both converted and stored music information from its original media, that means the mere act of listening to the music was a grievous violation of copyright law, because when you listen to music your perceptual system converts the source data into organic format, then stores it in the neural matrix of your brain. If you then "hum a few bars" of the tune, you are again violating copyright law by using the artist's music for your own purposes. If MP3 format is bad, what about the careless and haphazard neural format?
Boy, that rabbit's racing down that hole!
bobnchristy @ 37:
it's not an article, it's legal precedent. Sony was sued by the movie and tv industries because people could copy movies and shows from TV. Sony won the suit on the basis that people could make only personal recordings, but could not distribute, i.e., personal copying was permitted. google 'betamax sony lawsuit' for details.
Excactly! The middlemen are totally archaic. Artists need to cut them out completely and sell their music directly to the comsumer. If labels want to survive they need to provide a website where their music can be purchased at a reasonable price. They need to take into account that people around the world don't earn the same wages as most Americans. $1 per track might sound reasonable in the US but it is completely ludicrous in India or Russia.
I believe someone was just going off in another thread about those DAMNABLE forced 3 to 4 minute commercials after you put in the DVD (that you can't skip), and how it was making them consider DOWNLOADING or ripping the material they already purchased for $16 dollars!
That is stealing from the consumer, but WE don't get to take them to court over it. I bought the media, I'm NOT watching it for free on TV, but they are wasting my time jamming ads in my eyeballs ANYWAY! Not to mention the FBI warning just reminds me that I have the option to copy the DVD. I'm really sure it will slow down pirates.
It's the duplicators in China printing millions of illegal copies that hurt the artists. But who do they punish? ME. YOU. The people that just want to watch the damn movie they bought with their hard earned money, and get ON with life. If they want to suddenly show ads, fine -- make the DVD free. Otherwise, get them the hell off of there, just like thinks were. Theft in my eyes.
Just another example of their greed actually making piracy worse.
Again, the say part is their greed will hurt the rest of the economy and many artists when the system tanks. It's too bad we let them get this far in self-destructing. I find it bewildering that Apple (historically one of the most proprietary, closed, and secretive companies that likes big fat margins) is the big hero here. That really says something about the rest of these clowns...
Bud @ 56:
dump your fucking ISP.
I got it!
Someone patent the 1-4-5 chord progression, and then sue the pants off the music industry!
Eternal Vigilance @ 94:
Hey, don't forget the relative minor. The deeper songs use those from time to time.....
JJohnson @ 33:
Exactly. The RIAA's biggest mistake is their refusal to realize that there people out there who are smarter than they are. Smart enough to know that a Fall Out Boy CD with ONE good song on it just ain't worth the $17.99 retail price.
Not when you can download the whole damn thing for free....
Speaking of Fall Out Boy, why don't you ask them (or any other rock band) if they give a shit about music downloading...
They'll be the first ones to tell you that they don't make a dime off record sales no matter how many copies they sell.
Their money comes from selling concert tickets, T-shirts at those concerts, and licensening their music from other mediums.
It's kinda sad watching the RIAA cave in on itself...
I have not studied what the music industry has done to music during my lifetime but it seems pretty obvious. I go into a place, any place that has the radio on and i hear music that was popular 35 years ago. It was bought 35 years ago and the only people making money on it is the recording industry and the radio station. I am somehow supposed to believe that since 1980 people stopped writing and recording music. Every time i hear "Don't Fear the Rearer" i want to throw something. It's not that i don't like the song, i do. But just think about how much air time this one song has taken up over the years and how many songs were not played because of it.
I understand payolla still exists. How could you listen to a radio station and think otherwise?
Besides learning how to control what people hear have these people done for music?
Not a goddamned thing.
*Don’t Fear the Reaper
All right that does it: No Humming!
RIAA Prick Lawyer @ 99:
How about scat?
Bud @ 56:
I'd take that bet if you're not sharing files. Your ISP can tell a whole hell of a lot about the traffic going to or coming from your computer, because that's what they DO. You had a virus which was sending out all manner of garbage through your internet connection (it's what they do), so your ISP could tell--same way the IT department can tell the moment any computer on a campus network gets infected and starts trying to propagate itself. Them asking you to fix it was actually doing you (and maybe everybody in your address book) a favor.
Now, I have no love whatsoever for ISPs--after AT&T's "Badmouth us and we can turn off your connection," I've started to believe they're even worse than the RIAA since their service is practically a necessity today. And if you're SHARING files through your internet connection, that they can see, and if they feel like it, report to the RIAA.
But if you've just got a bunch of music that the RIAA is willing to pay the government and lawyers to say is illegal on your computer and no major security holes and you're not sharing them, your ISP shouldn't have any idea.
And on a somewhat related note, the RIAA has been soiling itself over Apple's dominance with the iTMS, because they realized a little too late that they'd given away the keys to the kingdom--they let somebody set up a successful, reasonably-priced (though still rather expensive) service that also allowed individual artists to get onboard and line up right next to the Big Boys, while getting a significant cut of the profits (of a 99 cent iTunes track, an indie who put their music up through CDBaby is getting about 63 cents in their pocket). They apparently just realized that the more successful Apple (and basically any other online service, now that Amazon is in the game) gets, the more irrelevant they become.
So now they're threatening to take their ball and go home with back catalog (witness some of the labels' fear of the recent higher-quality-no-copy protection option), except if they do that the loss in profits will be significant enough that it's a lose-lose proposition. Oops.
They're trying to prop up Amazon (since Microsoft's attempt with far more draconian copy protection was a complete failure), but since Amazon's is also copy-protection-free, they're shooting themselves in the proverbial foot, and it's going to be just as bad since Amazon is also plenty indie-friendly.
This is a radical concept, but how 'bout concentrating on making really GOOD music for a change! Shit, maybe if the product was of a high quality (honestly, mp3's don't sound as good as CD's), people would pay for it. Who wants to pay 15 bucks for one decent song?
The Death of High Fidelity
In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
xoites defends Constitution @ 97:
I don't listen to music radio generally.
Record companies and promoters have been screwing artists and fans since day one.
Finally the suits are redundant.
If this trend can make it's way to other sectors the economy might have a chance.
Imagine a world without corporations. No religion too.
File sharing is not stealing.
Intellectual property is dead and should be.
When you create, it is meant to be shared, not a money machine that tracks the number of people who have witnessed your creativity.
Steal as much digital media and programming as possible.
"Don't fear the rearer" is Larry Craig's favorite song from high school xoites.
#103, good post. MP3's sound terrible compared to CD's, and many modern CD's are just turned up loud (to 11, so to speak).
CoIntelPro @ 104:
I don't either, my memory is still intact. Get most of my more interesting leads for new and/or good music by perusing the Late Night Music Thread.
relativityoftheory @ 16:
I agree. riaa has gone off the deep end this time. All it's going to do is piss off just about any and everyone who
likes any type of music. And while it won't hurt the long
standing super star rock groups like KISS, Alice Cooper,
Ace Frehley, too much, it will just wreck new groups like
Blackland. Damn riaa to the lowest part of Hell.
If there's going to be nasty issues about who actually owns what I buy, and I don't have to buy, I won't.
Nowonmai @ 7:
Hmm. I'm a recording artist. My music is highly visible and available through iTunes. I'm quite familiar with the system of Apple itunes (I'm an independent artist, on a small independent label). I can tell you factually that there is no such thing as a stand-alone "permission slip" (if you will) from an artist to put your songs on your mp3 player. What you have done is this: purchased mp4 files from Apple iTunes, used the iTunes interface to convert mp4 to mp3, then put the mp3's on your mp3 player. Absolutely all of this is LEGAL. I don't like it when people brag about "convincing" their mp4's to be mp3's and getting permission from each artist to do so (including other lofty b.s.) -- When you purchased the songs, you purchased a legal copyright... a right to have your copy, no matter where/how/when/on what it's placed... or how many times you place it there/in whatever format. The "illegal" portion of mp3 traffic is when a copy is sold or otherwise made profit upon, or distributed outside of your right of copy, which is really simple to define.
having said that -- I cannot wait until the RIAA rots in hell. Alongside the MPAA. The RIAA represents a business model which was largely based on greed and has very fortunately run its course within the music business. The only move they can make from this point forward will not be in their sustainable interest. (and that's a good thing!)
uncle joe mccarthy @ 74:
mp3s and cds suck. I listen to vinyl and dvd audio.
They need to release music on vinyl again. It would save the music industry.
Lumpy Gravy @ 114:
Are you kidding me? The CD format is a much more clear portable format. It won't come back no how. Try making a vinyl player in your car. Not going to happen. I refuse to buy vinyl only for the curiosity on ancient technologies.
CoIntelPro @ 19:
Record companies are getting a cut of concerts now too, as well as a piece of all the merchandising. It's sad and sick. An artist almost can't make a living at all, unless as you say he's Prince. This I guess would be why it costs over a hundred dollars to see the Stones or the Eagles, as if I'd pay that to see a bunch of old men... = )
JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin @ 102:
MP3s are for in my car or for when I'm out walking around, and there's traffic noise and other stuff all around that's getting in the way of the music anyway. MP3s aren't as high-quality as CDs, of course not, but most of the time I'm not hearing the difference mainly because I'm not caring all that much. I also don't care that the sound quality on my local AM progressive radio station isn't very good, as long as I can hear what they're saying. Y'knowwhatImean?
This seems like a last ditch effort by the RIAA to salvage what they have left of distribution rights. In the past, independent artists couldn't survive because they couldn't match the money that major labels put towards marketing and distribution. Now many independent artists are able to produce and distribute their own music in multiple formats. Many people are still buying CDs, but if you buy from directly from the artist, the profits go directly to the artist and not the layers of hierarchy that are so prevalent in the music business.
The music business is falling apart not because people are ripping CDs to MP3s but because so many executives and other music industry officials are becoming non-essential. New music will always find its way to the listener, but the "major label" system that we've known for decades is becoming obsolete. That's good for independent artists but not so good for artists that are currently on those corporate labels.
The loophole in this argument in favor of the RIAA, however, is that it IS illegal to change the format of copyrighted material. If you buy a CD and rip it to an MP3, you are changing the format and the RIAA may have a case. If you buy it on iTunes or whatever as an MP3 or MP4 and put it on your iPod, you are not changing the format.
forge @ 117:
With respect, you should care, especially if the music is excellent. Everyone should demand, or at least fight as hard as they can, for the best presentation of the music. We should up our standards and demand that it's done properly.
So... Let me get this straight... Every itunes user that sticks a cd in their computer is committing a crime?
Ok. Well I know how to stop that. I'll just stop committing the crime by stopping to buy ANY cd's of any music.
The RIAA can stick that in their asses and spin on it for a while. The easiest way to stop the crime is remove the one thing that makes it a crime. Since you *can* buy (I assume, legal) music from itunes, we should all just stop buying cd's and only buy tunes one song at a time from online providers (not that I like itunes DRM but it's popular program that encourages breaking the RIAA's wet dream of a 'law').
The thought that the RIAA wants to protect some of the asinine and inane 'music' produced these days is crime enough... NO more cd's for me...
Marc @ 36:
From what I understand, the Washington Post actually misrepresented the facts. In truth, the defendent is being sued not because he ripped his purchased CD to his computer, but because he placed the MP3 files in a shared directory. Of course, the RIAA still maintains that ripping a CD is creating an "unauthorized copy," but here we are.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/30/1835210.shtml
I'd rather listen to progressive talk and sports talk than music these days anyway
Let's do some math here. Apple is now selling 160 GB iPods. Let's say the average iTunes song is 3.5 minutes long. At 128 kb/s, that's 3.36 MB/song, so 47,620 songs will fit. At $0.99/song, that's $47,143 to fill it up the RIAA-approved way.
How many iPods is Apple selling?
sigh
"music pirating" is the taking of music(al?) boats or ships in the ocean; I have never even heard of a serious case of this crime. The RIAA is referring to bootlegging of recordings that they claim to represent the owners of. They are attempting to obfuscate "bootlegging" with "piracy", to the detriment of those who are victims of piracy.
In my opinion, one of the problems for a user of a file-sharing service (or indeed, anything with music), is that in general, there's no way for the receiver to tell what rights (if any) are held by whom to that recording. This is why I prefer the French construction (where the person sharing a recording, not the one downloading it, is liable for any infringement); the person who has a better ability to track the rights of the recording is the one liable.
Jaime Legato @ 120:
@Jaime Legato - what law or ruling are you basing this theory on? The closest I can come up with is the non-circumvention clause of the DMCA - which has nothing directly to do with format; it has to do with evading encryption mechanisms (which none of the listed formats you give natively support).
Now, if you tried to do with with a DVD that was encrypted, then it would be illegal by the DMCA, but it would still be illegal if you burned it onto another DVD in a non-encrypted format.
So the format doesn't matter. Encryption (even bad encryption) does.
Hasn't everyone realized by now that corporate capitalism is the death of this country? And that trial lawyers are the only final last line of defense against their greedy squeeze on everyman's dollar? Corporate capitalism (fascism, if you will) has come to America, wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross, as Sinclair Lewis predicted many years ago; as Ike warned against the military-industrial complex. As Nader predicated that the only way Americans would understand the damage, would be to experience it, to get hit in the head with the giant sequoia being illegally logged, to suffer the devastation of Katrina with a GOP-controlled FEMA; to have billions in national treasure wasted on a lie.
And now those moguls are scared to death with all out attacks against populist uprising...look at what they're flinging at John Edwards these days - he's the only one that truly scares them; all others are in the corporate pocket.
LOL, who the hell thinks that the stinking record industry executives have ever had any "GOOD WILL", my god man grow a brain.
The RIAA is so bad that my wife, children and I won't buy music. Not because we support piracy. Or pirate. But because the RIAA is acting in such a complete ass-wipe demented way that we choose to vote with our dollars.
CoIntelPro @ 94:
And go where? I'm on a relatively small provider - if I go ComCast or Verizon, you think its any better there? I'm sure your ISP knows what's on your hard drive too.
That's why I always look at this 'net neutrality' thing with suspicion. Everyone says the internet is great because of the variety of content (and they're correct) - but very few look at who owns the 'pipes'.
Trust me - the revolution will be typed, not word-processed.
EC @ 4:
Exactly. I grew up in the 80s, and that's exactly what we did: copy vinyl to cassette, or even take your cheesy cassette recorder from Radio Shack and hold it up to the speakers when your favorite song was on the radio.
JoshuasGrandma @ 128:
And now those moguls are scared to death with all out attacks against populist uprising...look at what they're flinging at John Edwards these days - he's the only one that truly scares them; all others are in the corporate pocket.
Grandma, I agree with every word you just wrote! The last part, which I quote, drew my attention. The media in New York City is locked up tight by our own Republican Mayor Bloomberg who has taken over the school system and with his corporate ties exerts tremendous power (or perceived power). Now the school system is run by lawyers and educational mega corporations, and it is a contract mill where no bid contracts abound. The blatant abuse of power within Bloomberg's "Department of Education" is not well known among local hard working middle class people. In the meantime, teachers' civil rights are constantly violated, with the collusion of the United Federation of Teachers, their so called union. Seniority rights basically are gone, and senior teachers (expensive help) are persecuted and sent to "rubber rooms" instead of being allowed to teach, often on flimsy and fabricated charges that have relatively nothing to do with teaching. During the past five years here in New York City, I have witnessed the march of corporate fascism. The media has become a mind control mechanism, reporting whatever will distract and make the populace fearful and therefore controllable. I used to say it, but even my own anarchist-believing husband thought I was being a silly alarmist so I stopped saying how our country would be a fascist dictatorship within 50 years. In studying the history of dictatorial takeovers, the intellectuals and educators are often marginalized and persecuted. I see a vast power driven corporate-fueled corruption of the intent and purpose of government both in New York City and at the federal level, where it all originates.
I'm hoping for the best with Edwards in spite of the haircut problem. He does not appear to be owned (yet) by corporate interests. I wish we could meet over coffee sometime and continue this discussion...
D to the Izzle @ 32:
You could've saved yourself the trouble & just listed the Big Four, they own all the others. There aren't any more independents.
That's why they are in all this trouble in the fist place. At the turn of the century we had over 100 media outlets & news orgs. Now we have FOUR. All that horrible monopolistic greed chokes creativity. And they never will grasp that you cannot treat music like a commodity or a processed good. You can't put ART on the Dow Jones,...
They are suing him because he is sharing his cd collection.
Correction. They are suing him because he is allegedly sharing his cd collection.
Guess what. If a hacker wants to devise a trojan that compromises your computer and ends up turning it into a botnet node, they can do it. And they can share your drives to the internet in the process. They can do this whether or not you have up-to-date virus protection, because they are one step ahead at all times. The computer security experts, who know best, admit that there are millions of such compromised computers at any given time.
They could put some child porn on your computer, or some MP3s, and turn your drives into shared drives. Or they can use it as a distribution point on their network, without you ever knowing.
In light of this, how is the mere presence of anything on your computer in any way proof of wrongdoing by you personally? It cannot be proved. The evidence is not direct enough.
Nobody would believe this defense, of course. They would treat it as if a stolen car was found in your garage, and you claimed someone else stole it and put it there. But it would be an invalid analogy, as the one is much more likely and realistic than the other.
Stupid is as stupid does...and these executives definitely qualify as very stupid. Sales will continue to dive if they keep up this totally off-the-wall policy of trying to screw the customers. I wonder how much money they pay the lawyers and how much lawyer fees impact their profits?
Moderation @ 29:
Obviously I don't know how to use the Quote function so my reply came out italicized, as if all written by Moderation@29. Mine 2 cents are only the last paragraph. Sorry 'bout that M29.
I follow Dean Baker. Here's what he says about protectionist measures:
http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=12&year=2007...
The mainstream music industry is dying because it has mutated into the CELEBRITY industry. DRM, business models, blah blah blah certainly put a suck on the whole enterprise, but the bedrock problem is that A&R people are either too restricted or too stupid to sign, develop and heavily promote ARTISTS.
The focus on the visual, in what should be an auditory experience, is wholly misguided. Can you imagine artists like Tom Petty, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, (insert your favorite "face for radio" artist here), being sold primarily on their LOOKS? There is great music being made today -- you just wouldn't know it from what the industry is trying to sell. And consumers aren't stupid -- they won't buy any old crap in the huge numbers of yesteryear.
The fallout: we've lost an entire generation to video games.
If it's illegal to transfer the data from a CD to a hard drive, then is it also illegal to transfer data from one section of the hard drive to another? Like, say, a defrag, perhaps? People pay money for the intellectual content - the artist is the one with the goods, not you, record labels. All you do is put it on a piece of plastic that costs pennies to produce, box it, and ship it. You are irrelevant. CD's are obsolete. At least vinyl is still neccessary for turntablism. You gotta have turntables and vinyl records if you wanna be a DJ - but CD's? Useless superfluous plastic. If you continue to cheat the artists out of their FAIR percentage, AND attack the fans, the consumers... well you deserve what you get. Why is it such a mystery to you that your industry is dying? You know, I rented a DVD about a month ago and the "copy protection" software prevented it from even being PLAYED on my computer. I wasn't trying to copy it, rip it, burn it... I don't own a DVD player because I have one built into my computer. I've never had this problem before. I couldn't even WATCH the damn thing. You make a product that is completely inaccessible to your consumers and then you're baffled as to why they would go and get it for free with a simple click and wait? What kind of bean counters are running your industry?!
Who will be the first major artist (or group of artists) to get out of their current contracts and sell their next album from their own website at their own price? (Complete with cover art ect...) In fact, a group of such united artists could topple the label domintation forever....(and the lables know it). The ensueing court battle over distribution rights for their back catalogue would be very interesting indeed.
One of the larger question for me is the RIAA actually gaining access to
peoples personal computer and if so, how are they are aided.
I try to only buy music directly from the artist, either from their web site or from the side of the stage from their roadie at the show. I qant my cash going as directly as possible into the wallet of the artist and not the label machine.
And it's about the RIAA suing their consumers! What a way to alienate fans & consumers of music! By suing them! There are many rock bands who are against the RIAA suing grandmas & children!
What if the RIAA really just wants to stop ALL downloading of even FREE music?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D71E3BF937A2575AC0A...
Hank @ 137:
No, I mean for the production, paying the artists, the manufacturing, and the advertising, not just the raw material. It costs, at the very, very most, $2 or so to completely manufacture a CD from start to finish, with all ad costs, etc. What's more, they are selling me inferior crap at a higher price. I have plenty of 20 yr old CDs that cost me ~$7.99 each that still function perfectly, while 5 yr old CDs that cost $17.99 are already self-destructing. How is it that they are charging $15+ bucks for a 25-yr old medium that is inferior to the quality of the medium when said medium was initially released? Simple. They are ripping their customers off.
Finally, I said not one damned thing about breaking the law. Why should I download music when I can listen to streams all day long for free legally, from all around the world, and get exposure to music I otherwise wouldn't thanks to the music station oligopoly, which only plays the same old crap every day? That being said, I gladly go to the sites of ARTISTS and pay ARTISTS for their ART. Or see them live. I will not pay outrageous prices for an inferior product, therefore I no longer buy CDs whatsoever.
Regardless, once I own a copy of the art, I can do whatever I like with it, so long as it falls within fair use. Copies for personal use, making mixes, etc, all fall well within fair use. I absolutely will not pay these greedy idiots ~$15-20 every 5 or so years to rebuy music I already own, because they wish to manufacture a product that purposely self-destructs. Screw that noise.
The RIAA like a shopkeeper who nobody liked to begin with that is being systematically robbed from during a looting spree. As hordes upon hordes of criminals brazenly waltz into the store and loot, occasionally the shopkeeper picks one up by the neck and beats him senseless. The other looters, pausing even a second from their looting, put on expressions of outrage at the shopkeeper's behavior. If you look at this thread, you will see basically the same thing over and over again - people willing to express shock and outrage at the RIAA's over-reach, but nobody (or virtually nobody) who will make the obvious claim that the fundamental problem is the widescale copyright infringement that is at the core of all this.
In other news, blatantly taking copyrighted clips, even long one, from news shows and the like and posting it to a blog is still kosher apparently. Expect this messsage to be deleted soon, since each time i mention this in a C&L note, my message is mysteriously deleted.
Gretchen @ 50:
I remember back during the days of the Republic that when accused, the burden of proof fell upon the accuser, not the defendant.
Login or Register to post comments.