Has RIAA Finally Crossed The Line?

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: thepd7
I accidentally voted yes, obviously you own the music and can do whatever you want with it.

Didn't the supreme court uphold a copy of a dvd if you own the original or something like that? This is the same thing just the copy is electronic.

You can have a personal copy of a dvd but the kicker is it illeagal to circumvent (sp?) the copy write protection.

 

[Linflas]

Ultimately the RIAA will win this war against consumers. Just notice in any thread on this board their success in brainwashing large numbers of people to buy into their idea of equating potential and actual copyright infringement with stealing. Everyone ignores that the whole purpose of copyright is to grant a limited monopoly to copyright holders for a limited period of time. The power to set the terms for this are constitutionally vested in Congress and they are supposed to be balancing the fair use rights of the public at large while providing certain limited monopoly rights to the copyright holders so as to incent them to produce more creative works. Unfortunately the public does not have any high powered whores bribing Congress on behalf of the fair use rights of consumers.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Ah, but you brain IS a medium.

not for copyright purposes it ain't

 

[ranmaniac]

The RIAA makes me want to start collecting vinyl and used CDs just so they don't get any royalties.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
RIAA needs to be shut down.

Seriously. And the title of the thread? RIAA crossed the line years ago! I think I'm going to pay a few dollars for that album that was recently offered online for free just to spite the RIAA even if the music sucks.

The most laughable thing is that the RIAA probably claims to represent the musicians.

 

[imported_Imp]

Thank god I live in the country to the north that allows it as far as I know.

 

[imported_Imp]

Twitched... dp

 

[Muadib]

This thread didn't deliver. Change the title OP.

 

[Tarrant64]

So what's the point in the millions of dollars being made off of cd-burning software?

ipods? media players? mp3 players? where's that market left at?


There will be no point in burnable media really(other than data)...

I'm just lost, as I guess most people are, at the direction they are trying to go.

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do that

I posted this before, and I'm not 100% certain, but I've been informed numerous time by the copyright gurus at our school that it's a copyright violation to shift forms. Fair use allows a legal copy in the same form. But, you may not backup a cassette to CD, or VHS to DVD. "Format shifting" is what I believe it's called.

So all the VHS/DVD - player/recorder combos in the stores are illegal?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
So what's the point in the millions of dollars being made off of cd-burning software?

ipods? media players? mp3 players? where's that market left at?


There will be no point in burnable media really(other than data)...

I'm just lost, as I guess most people are, at the direction they are trying to go.

I'm not lost at all, I see the direction they are trying to go and in their little fantasy world they would collect royalties each time a work is played from each person in earshot of said work.

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Evadman
please let it go to court.

No kidding... I would love this to climb as high as the courts will allow it, even all the way up to the Supreme Court, if they'll hear the case. There needs to be a ruling on what really constitutes "stealing" versus fair use in this digital age. If the RIAA had it their way, everyone would buy a CD, and then would pay to download the music onto their computer. They would make us pay twice for the same good, just in different formats. Of course this makes sense to the RIAA because, in many cases, their members would have a double dip of the profits.

I will always buy CDs. I will never buy an album online in leiu of buying the CD. The reason is that I want the hard, physical copy of the media. I don't want to worry about losing my music collection to a hard drive failure. I have a digital copy of my entire music collection, and if I take a CD out of the house, I almost always take a burn rather than the original copy. Am I violating the law according to the RIAA? Personally, I don't think that I am.

What about a case where a man and his wife share a CD collection. They both love a certain set of artists that they listen to in their car CD players and on their iPods while working out. Would this couple have to buy 4 copies of this music?!? One CD for each car and one MP3 for each iPod? That sounds absurd to me.

R

Not 4 - asuming this suit fails under 'fair use' as it should.

But technically you would have to buy 2 - just because you're married doesn't create a shared licence

If the suit doesn't fail, then 5. Two CD's, two for the pair of ipods, one on the computer.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Pederv

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do that

I posted this before, and I'm not 100% certain, but I've been informed numerous time by the copyright gurus at our school that it's a copyright violation to shift forms. Fair use allows a legal copy in the same form. But, you may not backup a cassette to CD, or VHS to DVD. "Format shifting" is what I believe it's called.

So all the VHS/DVD - player/recorder combos in the stores are illegal?

AFAIK those combos do not allow you to copy a DVD directly to VHS.

 

[Xavier434]

This is wrong on so many levels. So, if this is illegal then does this mean that the following are also illegal?


1. Purchasing a legal MP3. Copying and pasting that MP3 to a different directory on your hard drive leaving you with two of the same MP3 on your computer?

2. Same scenario as above but instead of copying and pasting from one directory to another you copy and paste the MP3 from your computer to another computer that you own.

3. Buying a Harry Potter book from Barnes and Nobles and then taking the time photocopy or even manually write a copy of the book which you do not claim as being your own creation and only plan to personally read yourself?


The god damned line needs to be drawn here. Too many legit users of tons of media, software, and games have been screwed lately by some form of DRM or lawsuit.

 

[mugs]

The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: mugs
The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

Thanks for curing my laziness

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: mugs
The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

look at his sig, shouldente be a supprise that he has no intrest in truth or accuracy

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: mugs
The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

True and false. While they are going after the guy for file sharing they also claim that his ripped music is an "unauthorized copy" which is a clue as to their ultimate intentions. As was pointed out in some commentary on this whole flap they may have been too clever for their own good by the use of that little phrase.

 

[dpert1]

I say we boycott music all together. I dunno how long it would take, not to mention theres no way in hell everyone would be on board for it to work, but if we all just didnt buy, download, do anything related to music under the guise that were all scared of being sued, how long before RIAA goes belly up?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: mugs
The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

look at his sig, shouldente be a supprise that he has no intrest in truth or accuracy

Ding ding ding!

 

[Pederv]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Pederv

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do that

I posted this before, and I'm not 100% certain, but I've been informed numerous time by the copyright gurus at our school that it's a copyright violation to shift forms. Fair use allows a legal copy in the same form. But, you may not backup a cassette to CD, or VHS to DVD. "Format shifting" is what I believe it's called.

So all the VHS/DVD - player/recorder combos in the stores are illegal?

AFAIK those combos do not allow you to copy a DVD directly to VHS.

But they do let you record VHS to DVD.
Samsung at Bestbuy

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: dpert1
I say we boycott music all together. I dunno how long it would take, not to mention theres no way in hell everyone would be on board for it to work, but if we all just didnt buy, download, do anything related to music under the guise that were all scared of being sued, how long before RIAA goes belly up?

It's not like you can't listen to music, just don't support RIAA affiliated labels. riaaradar.com is an excellent resource for determining which labels are members and which are not. Not to mention there is a lot of free (and surprisingly good) music out there available under creative commons license.

I think a lot of people are boycotting RIAA labels to at least some extent. Many of the bands I listen to are either on indie labels or unsigned, but some of my top five groups (Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree, for example) are on RIAA affiliated labels, so I just pick up used copies of their albums (either on Amazon or through trading sites like Lala and SwapaCD).

You're right that it's probably somewhat pointless, though, as labels are just going to shove millions of copies of the latest Avril Lavigne album or whatever down the sheeple's throat.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: mugs
The report in the OP has been exposed as inaccurate in this thread. The lawsuit has nothing to do with ripping CDs your own; the MP3s were shared on a P2P service. I PMed the OP and asked him to correct the topic summary and first post, but he apparently has no interest in truth or accuracy.

True and false. While they are going after the guy for file sharing they also claim that his ripped music is an "unauthorized copy" which is a clue as to their ultimate intentions. As was pointed out in some commentary on this whole flap they may have been too clever for their own good by the use of that little phrase.

Do you have an in-context quote? I've never heard of the RIAA making that claim; in fact there are CDs that come with software that will allow you to rip a DRMed copy of the music on the CD. To rip a non-DRMed copy you'd have to use your own software, but the fact that they give you the ability to rip it at all makes me wonder why they'd make the claim that you can't make copies for personal use. Maybe that's the key phrase right there? You're allowed to make copies for personal use only. A copy made for distribution IS an unauthorized copy, so by making it freely available for download I guess that would make the act of ripping it in the first place a copyright violation as well. Makes sense.

 

[frostedflakes]

I think you're right mugs, the wording seems kind of confusing to me but after checking out the RIAA site that seems to jive with what it says.

Copying CDs

* It?s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
* It?s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R?s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) ? but, again, not for commercial purposes.
* Beyond that, there?s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won?t usually raise concerns so long as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
o The copy is just for your personal use. It?s not a personal use ? in fact, it?s illegal ? to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
* The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
* Remember, it?s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

http://riaa.org/physicalpiracy...=piracy_online_the_law

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think you're right mugs, the wording seems kind of confusing to me but after checking out the RIAA site that seems to jive with what it says.

Copying CDs

* It?s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
* It?s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R?s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) ? but, again, not for commercial purposes.
* Beyond that, there?s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won?t usually raise concerns so long as:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
o The copy is just for your personal use. It?s not a personal use ? in fact, it?s illegal ? to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
* The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
* Remember, it?s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

http://riaa.org/physicalpiracy...=piracy_online_the_law

The prez of the RIAA was on NPR today. I tuned in at the end of the conversation, but even he wasn't as clear cut as to what is and isn't legal, and what's a consumer's right, as it pertains to music legally purchased.

Read WIRED's interview with UMG's CEO, and that was kind of eye opening.