• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

President Bush is an illegal music downloader!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,995
8,369
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Vic
It's tempting to want to rip on Bush for this (pun intended), however, despite whatever the RIAA likes to say, ripping a CD to your own mp3 player is legal fair use, and something I do all the time, so it would be hypocritical of me to knock Bush for this. Plus, the thread title is wrong, unless it can be shown that Bush got this off a torrent or whatever.
I don't accept that ripping your own CD for use on an MP3 player is fair use.

What's the difference in principle between that and copying your own CD of Windows Vista that you installed on one of your PCs and installing it on another of your PCs?
Who cares what you accept? I'm speaking fact, not opinion.

And the differences are that (1) software is licensed, music is owned, and (2) having a single copy of Vista installed on 2 PC's necessarily implies that they would both be in use at the same time, whereas ripping the CD to my mp3 player implies that I'll listen to one copy at home and the other at the gym but never both at the same time. So it's merely an exchange of media. Hence, fair use.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Vic
It's tempting to want to rip on Bush for this (pun intended), however, despite whatever the RIAA likes to say, ripping a CD to your own mp3 player is legal fair use, and something I do all the time, so it would be hypocritical of me to knock Bush for this. Plus, the thread title is wrong, unless it can be shown that Bush got this off a torrent or whatever.
I don't accept that ripping your own CD for use on an MP3 player is fair use.

What's the difference in principle between that and copying your own CD of Windows Vista that you installed on one of your PCs and installing it on another of your PCs?
Who cares what you accept? I'm speaking fact, not opinion.

And the differences are that (1) software is licensed, music is owned, and (2) having a single copy of Vista installed on 2 PC's necessarily implies that they would both be in use at the same time, whereas ripping the CD to my mp3 players means that I'll listen to one copy at home and the other at the gym but never both at the same time. So it's merely an exchange of media. Hence, fair use.
Didn't the DMCA kill off fair use? Or does it only relate to protected media?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The RIAA has never pursued this theory in court because
1) they'd lose and set a bad precedent for themselves
2) there's tons of people to sue for what is authoritatively illegal so no reason to shoot themselves in the foot
Let me put it this way:

If the music industry figures out how to seamlessly tie the ability to load a digital file onto a player and play it to a unique license that's locked to that specific digital file (such that copying the file and attempting to load it on another device wouldn't work), no court in the world is going to block them.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,995
8,369
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Didn't the DMCA kill off fair use? Or does it only relate to protected media?
In this regard, DMCA only applies to the protection method itself by making it illegal to circumvent it (or even attempt to).

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,311
8
81
From the OP:

Last year, RIAA decided that it may be illegal to rip CDs and put them on your iPod. Yes, if you haven't read that news last year, ripping a legal CD could be illegal.
The RIAA is not the arbiter of Law and Justice, and does not have the power to decide whether anything is legal or illegal.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,995
8,369
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The RIAA has never pursued this theory in court because
1) they'd lose and set a bad precedent for themselves
2) there's tons of people to sue for what is authoritatively illegal so no reason to shoot themselves in the foot
Let me put it this way:

If the music industry figures out how to seamlessly tie the ability to load a digital file onto a player and play it to a unique license that's locked to that specific digital file (such that copying the file and attempting to load it on another device wouldn't work), no court in the world is going to block them.
Sure, because that's product, not law. If a consumer chooses to purchase a product so crippled, that's their problem. Same thing if the music industry chooses to sell it. Quite frankly, I don't see such a thing happening.
IMO the CD is about the end-of-the-line for the traditional music sales format, and the future is mp3's (or similar) and the subscription services.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,253
477
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The RIAA has never pursued this theory in court because
1) they'd lose and set a bad precedent for themselves
2) there's tons of people to sue for what is authoritatively illegal so no reason to shoot themselves in the foot
Let me put it this way:

If the music industry figures out how to seamlessly tie the ability to load a digital file onto a player and play it to a unique license that's locked to that specific digital file (such that copying the file and attempting to load it on another device wouldn't work), no court in the world is going to block them.
Lexmark tried to use the DMCA exactly like this and lost in court.
 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,207
79
91
I suspect he used a government computer for said illegal actions. He should reprimanded and his employment status be re-evaluated, just like any other government employee.

 
Oct 4, 2004
10,521
6
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't think that the OP was really trying to bash Bush for this. I think it's more of a statement as to how stupid the RIAA's position on this issue is.
Ditto. I remember reading an article where a Sony executive said that it was 'wrong' for a consumer to copy a CD/DVD to their computer and the reporter then questioned him on Sony's own line of digital audio/video players that came packaged with software to rip your CDs and DVDs. Hell, Sony even makes Networked Digital Media Centers and advertises them as an 'easy way to access your library of music and movies from anywhere in the house.' The irony was strong in that one.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,604
17
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The RIAA has never pursued this theory in court because
1) they'd lose and set a bad precedent for themselves
2) there's tons of people to sue for what is authoritatively illegal so no reason to shoot themselves in the foot
1) They don't really seem too concerned about setting bad precedents. They've already endeared themselves to college students, and many other people who like music.
2) They can't shoot themselves in the foot anymore. Their feet have already been blown off, and now they're slowly bleeding to death anyway.


Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Ditto. I remember reading an article where a Sony executive said that it was 'wrong' for a consumer to copy a CD/DVD to their computer and the reporter then questioned him on Sony's own line of digital audio/video players that came packaged with software to rip your CDs and DVDs. Hell, Sony even makes Networked Digital Media Centers and advertises them as an 'easy way to access your library of music and movies from anywhere in the house.' The irony was strong in that one.
Seriously? Wow, apparently someone there is really up to date on what the company is doing.
"Ripping our stuff is illegal. BTW, here is software to rip our stuff. Contradiction? What contradiction?"
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The RIAA has never pursued this theory in court because
1) they'd lose and set a bad precedent for themselves
2) there's tons of people to sue for what is authoritatively illegal so no reason to shoot themselves in the foot
1) They don't really seem too concerned about setting bad precedents. They've already endeared themselves to college students, and many other people who like music.
2) They can't shoot themselves in the foot anymore. Their feet have already been blown off, and now they're slowly bleeding to death anyway.
I meant a binding Legal Precedent, not precedent as an indicator of behavior. 2 related to 1 regarding setting the legal precedent against them.

When you are winning nearly every case, you don't push for an order based on questionable legal arguments where a ruling against you gives opponents an island of safety.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS