RIAA

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
If this is the 'new' fact then I'll gladly withdraw my statement. I had no idea that I was allowed to own music in any form once I purchased it on a single media format. Is this in writing somewhere?

And no, I'm not saying that I never d/l songs or make compilation discs or anything.

Well it doesn't mean you can download the DVD-Audio version of an album just because you own the CD. But it does mean you can take your CD and make a tape of it. (Or like I did with my Dead Kennedys vinyls, make tapes and CDs from the records) As long as you aren't getting something you couldn't have gotten from the version of it you own (besides what form it is in) there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to download Yellowcard mp3s you can, provided you have the CD.

Like I said, I used this exemption to get back some of the albums I lost when my car was broken into. Technically I still own the CDs, and if they're ever found they go back to me. In the meantime I can use my legally downloaded backups.

 

[IndieSnob]

Whomevern is arguing that you are legally able to download a song if you own the album are wrong, according to interpetations of the law as it now stands. The only legal way is still to make a backup to mp3, cd, dvd, (insert other media name here), from your original source. The interpatation is this way because, IIRC, they have no way of telling whether you legally own the album or not, plus you could be downloading a different verstion of that song, i.e. different mix, live version, extended version, etc that was either released on another album, compilations, ep, or bootleg release.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Whomevern is arguing that you are legally able to download a song if you own the album are wrong, according to interpetations of the law as it now stands. The only legal way is still to make a backup to mp3, cd, dvd, (insert other media name here), from your original source. The interpatation is this way because, IIRC, they have no way of telling whether you legally own the album or not, plus you could be downloading a different verstion of that song, i.e. different mix, live version, extended version, etc that was either released on another album, compilations, ep, or bootleg release.

Not true. All it takes is a receipt and a quick listen of the song to prove it is the same version. I have the receipts and album cases for the CDs that were stolen out of my car; if it ever comes up I'm not worried.

Can they file suit? Sure. Will it get anywhere if you own the album? No.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Whomevern is arguing that you are legally able to download a song if you own the album are wrong, according to interpetations of the law as it now stands. The only legal way is still to make a backup to mp3, cd, dvd, (insert other media name here), from your original source. The interpatation is this way because, IIRC, they have no way of telling whether you legally own the album or not, plus you could be downloading a different verstion of that song, i.e. different mix, live version, extended version, etc that was either released on another album, compilations, ep, or bootleg release.

Not true. All it takes is a receipt and a quick listen of the song to prove it is the same version. I have the receipts and album cases for the CDs that were stolen out of my car; if it ever comes up I'm not worried.

Can they file suit? Sure. Will it get anywhere if you own the album? No.

Sorry, you're still absolutely wrong. Again the law, or according to what's being enforced by the RIAA is the only LEGAL way to make a backup of what you currently own is FROM YOUR OWN MEDIUM, not from another source. Here's a link to proof of this:


Text

Here's a quote of what it says about said thing:

Q: What if you own a CD but can't find it, or at another location, can you download another copy of the music legally?

A: No. While you are allowed to make a copy of the CD you purchased (or selections from that CD) for your own personal use, you cannot download a copy of the same music legally. When you buy a CD (the old-fashioned way, at a brick and mortar store) you acquire certain rights. You can listen to the CD, you can make a copy for your own personal use and you can convert it into a format for your MP-3 player or similar device. You can also give your CD away to a friend. (Just don?t keep the copy you made while giving the original to a friend.) You didn?t acquire the rights to make copies of the same music from other sources.

Q: If you want to use a song you already own on a CD but need it in MP3 format, can you download it in MP3 format to use on your MP3 player only?

A: No. You can convert it into an MP-3 format though. (See above.)

Q: What rights do you acquire when you buy a CD?

A: You can listen to the CD, you can make a copy for your own personal use and you can convert it into a format for your MP-3 player or similar device. You can also give your CD away to a friend. (Just don?t keep the copy you made while giving the original to a friend.) You didn?t acquire the rights to make copies of the same music from other sources.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Whomevern is arguing that you are legally able to download a song if you own the album are wrong, according to interpetations of the law as it now stands. The only legal way is still to make a backup to mp3, cd, dvd, (insert other media name here), from your original source. The interpatation is this way because, IIRC, they have no way of telling whether you legally own the album or not, plus you could be downloading a different verstion of that song, i.e. different mix, live version, extended version, etc that was either released on another album, compilations, ep, or bootleg release.

If the songs were the same length, could they really tell if a song was reproduced off of YOUR SPECIFIC CD vs someone else's? For instance, could they tell the difference if my friend ripped it, I d/l it off his FTP, but I own my own version of the CD? Could they digitially tell if the song came off of mine, or my friend's CD?

 

[IndieSnob]

The only ways they would be able to tell if it was from another source are these:

#1: Alot of mp3's that have been around for awhile have the same hash marks to them. Alot of those have been flagged by the RIAA so they know it's a file that's been floated around to everyone.

#2: I'm not sure how this would work but sometimes an import can have different times to the songs, and can vary by imbedded track numbers and the like.

As far as the burden of proof on them as to knowing whether that mp3 on your computer was downloaded or backed up from your source locally, all they have to prove is that they caught you in the act of downloading said song.

 

[Triumph]

Bottom line is that we USED to be able to make copies of media that we owned, if we did not redistribute it. This had all been worked out years ago because the industry had the same fears about casette tapes and VCRs. The courts ruled that making copies for your own use was 'acceptable use.' And apparently the DMCA changed all that?

And there is a difference between making mp3's of CD's you own, and then distributing those MP3's, versus just keeping them to yourself.

 

[Fenixgoon]

two things... 1: does anyone think a lot of modern bands/artists suck, and have no staying ability whatsoever? they get 2 or 3 albums, and then they're gone. wtf is up with that?
2: anyone else think the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot?

i say yes to both of the above

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Sorry, you're still absolutely wrong. Again the law, or according to what's being enforced by the RIAA is the only LEGAL way to make a backup of what you currently own is FROM YOUR OWN MEDIUM, not from another source. Here's a link to proof of this:


Text

Here's a quote of what it says about said thing:

<blah blah blah, RIAA f%$#s us all sideways>

Great, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. What asshats.

See what chafes me is that they're making something illegal that shouldn't be. Of course now there are a number of free rippers out there that work great, so there's not much excuse not to make your own backups. But damn.

Is there anything in there about getting your CDs stolen? I'm assuming I can still have the backups I made since, well, that's what backups are for: the eventuality that your copy is no longer useable.

Oh, do they just say this is the case or do they furnish links to the laws? 'cause not that I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth, but I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Sorry, you're still absolutely wrong. Again the law, or according to what's being enforced by the RIAA is the only LEGAL way to make a backup of what you currently own is FROM YOUR OWN MEDIUM, not from another source. Here's a link to proof of this:


Text

Here's a quote of what it says about said thing:

<blah blah blah, RIAA f%$#s us all sideways>

Great, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. What asshats.

See what chafes me is that they're making something illegal that shouldn't be. Of course now there are a number of free rippers out there that work great, so there's not much excuse not to make your own backups. But damn.

Is there anything in there about getting your CDs stolen? I'm assuming I can still have the backups I made since, well, that's what backups are for: the eventuality that your copy is no longer useable.

Oh, do they just say this is the case or do they furnish links to the laws? 'cause not that I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth, but I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth.

First off, the laws were never changed. It's never been legal to download backups of anything online.

Copyright law has always stated that you have the right to make archival backup, as long as the EULA states you can (Microsoft and a few other companies DO NOT allow this), but with music backsups you are ok. The stipulation of having an archival backup's are these:

#1: Only one copy is allowed, you may not make multiple copies.
#2: If the original is stolen, destroyed (fire, accident, etc.) you are still allowed to have your backup.
#3: If you in anyway sell your original, whether audio cd, dvd, software, you MUST destroy the backup, as you are no longer the legal owner of said item.

I wouldn't worry about having your own backups around, if they were stolen. They're not going to search house to house for burned cd's. The way to getting caught is downloading the music. Even if your music has been stolen, you still have no legal rights to download the,.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
Sorry, you're still absolutely wrong. Again the law, or according to what's being enforced by the RIAA is the only LEGAL way to make a backup of what you currently own is FROM YOUR OWN MEDIUM, not from another source. Here's a link to proof of this:


Text

Here's a quote of what it says about said thing:

<blah blah blah, RIAA f%$#s us all sideways>

Great, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. What asshats.

See what chafes me is that they're making something illegal that shouldn't be. Of course now there are a number of free rippers out there that work great, so there's not much excuse not to make your own backups. But damn.

Is there anything in there about getting your CDs stolen? I'm assuming I can still have the backups I made since, well, that's what backups are for: the eventuality that your copy is no longer useable.

Oh, do they just say this is the case or do they furnish links to the laws? 'cause not that I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth, but I don't trust the RIAA to tell the truth.

First off, the laws were never changed. It's never been legal to download backups of anything online.

Copyright law has always stated that you have the right to make archival backup, as long as the EULA states you can (Microsoft and a few other companies DO NOT allow this), but with music backsups you are ok. The stipulation of having an archival backup's are these:

#1: Only one copy is allowed, you may not make multiple copies.
#2: If the original is stolen, destroyed (fire, accident, etc.) you are still allowed to have your backup.
#3: If you in anyway sell your original, whether audio cd, dvd, software, you MUST destroy the backup, as you are no longer the legal owner of said item.

I wouldn't worry about having your own backups around, if they were stolen. They're not going to search house to house for burned cd's. The way to getting caught is downloading the music. Even if your music has been stolen, you still have no legal rights to download the,.

You arent quite right on this. And the linked site above is also not entirely correct.

These lawsuits haven't done jack squat to determine legal precidence (sp? I'm tired) This is VERY similar to DTV's lawsuits in the sense that its a mass group of lawyers and paralegals sending out TONS of lawsuits threatening huge fines. It boils down to a numbers game, if even a small percentage of the people pay up they at least break even, if they scare even a small percentage of people into not doing P2P, they succeed. They dont care what the law really is, they just care about the effects of this campaign.

They have NOT established that a online source for a backup is illegal. The reason this is grey area (and the reason why alot of sites like the aforementioned one claim its illegal) is because the Internet wasnt around when Fair Use was fleshed out. So its not specifically provided for, but nobody has gone the distance in proving for a fact that it is or is not a legal source of backups. Partially because of instances of remote storage. If I have a webserver/ftp online somewhere that I use to store backups of certain documents, then saying that "downloading MP3's from the internet is illegal" means that regardless of the fact that I own the server in question (or lease space, or otherwise secured rights to the storage point) it is illegal for me to download them over the internet, and in order to retrieve my backups I would have to physically go extract them from the hosting providers location. Not likely to happen. P2P makes it even harder to discern because if I own the CD and host a own the CD, me downloading the songs from host A doesnt affect the property rights one iota.....that would be like me and host A swapping CD's, absolutely nothing illegal. Swapping the backups of the product you own for someone elses backup of the same thing you own does not infract upon the law at all.

What screws things up is when host B comes along, who doesnt own the CD, and downloads the backups from host A. Then host A is in violation because they didnt properly secury the property of the distributor (in this case the recording label). So while host B is most definitely in violation of the law, host A most likely is also, because its not different from making a physcal backup, setting it in a public place, and then when someone walks off with it making another, setting it in the same spot, and someone else walks off with it, and making another etc. etc. etc.

Meanwhile I am not in trouble because I didnt provide a copy of these backups. If I choose to do so, according to the cases currently tried in the courts, it is my responsibility to verify that each and every person that takes a copy, allready had rights to a backup copy AND, and this part isnt so much proven yet because it nevers gets this far, that those individuals only have ONE backup copy.

Technically speaking, a legal MP3 on your hard drive becomes an infractions of copyright law if/when you copy it and dont mov it from one folder to another.

Technically speaking they can make your life enough of a nightmare without being "right".
So from all accounted standpoints, the only way to really be safe from the RIAA is to not buy their music and not use P2P of any form for anything....even if you download trailers over kazaa, if someone renames a Top40 mp3 to "Spiderman 2 trailer" and you download it, even though its not against the law because you didnt know what you were getting, the RIAA could still sue you.

But it has not been decided yet whether or not online sources of backups of music you allready own are in fact illegal. But hosting backups online is either illegal, or too prohibitive a burden to be viable.

 

[konakona]

Just because you buy a cd doesn't give you entitlement to have that music in another form.

same thing could be said about say.. a dictionary. what if i photocopied a few pages so i wouldnt have to carry the thick book to class? to my understanding, that was a common practice among many students. now, if i photocopied the whole thing and sold it on ebay, that would be a whole different story.

doesnt bother me either way, i dont buy or listen to any music RIAA might be involved in.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Just because you buy a cd doesn't give you entitlement to have that music in another form.

same thing could be said about say.. a dictionary. what if i photocopied a few pages so i wouldnt have to carry the thick book to class? to my understanding, that was a common practice among many students. now, if i photocopied the whole thing and sold it on ebay, that would be a whole different story.

doesnt bother me either way, i dont buy or listen to any music RIAA might be involved in.

Not to mention the simple fact that the quoted statement is just patently wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[cain]

the onlything that I can say about the RIAA is that it can blow big elephant chunks