Sonys brilliance continues...."Copying" music you own is "Stealing"

[CKent]

Seems they're getting desperate, hopefully they'll file bankruptcy soon and make the world a better place with their absence. Hopefully their headquarters will erupt in a giant fiery explosion too... ok that one's a bit of a stretch (it would be nice though).

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
No doubt they want it to continue. I've read a few articles lately that have hit on this point, that they thrived on total control and scarcity, but we're in an era of media abundance now.

....and they're coming to realize their own obsolescence. As a result, they're throwing a legal temper tantrum.

They pissed and moaned about VCRs, too. VCRs were said to be the end, the death, of the movie industry. The industry fought against their release as if an army of the things was going to murder every living being, or worse, burn every last dollar bill. Now look at how many billions of dollars they take in from sales of "home movies." Change hurts initially, but ultimately, those who adapt can profit.

I'm old enough to remember the Hollywood campaign against "pay TV". At that time they said that things like HBO would be the death of the movie industry. Unfortunately they control the idiots in the white domed building in DC who do their bidding whenever asked.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

music, tv, and movie industries are dinosaurs that feel entitled to screw us whenever they feel. time and time again, they resist change in ANY form. when CD's first came out, nevermind lousy sound quality and covers, they were packaged in boxes twice as big, because "consumers won't buy the smaller product." their idea of adding value is a 50% empty box. another example of moronity: when DVD's were about to be released, MPAA demanded royalties on both the movie and the player. the player royalties are a percentage of the MSRP, at the time about $1000. currently, newegg's lowest priced DVD player is $30, but they had a special for $10 not long ago. $10! the MPAA has seen that revenue source completely dry up.

i will continue to selectively add to my library, and i will continue to do whatever i want with the content i purchased.

 

[Jeff7]

And weren't records entirely full of music, both sides? Now we get 74min CDs that are too often only about half-filled.

 

[DnetMHZ]

99.9% of music today sucks so bad it's not even worth stealing, let alone buying. I've acquired maybe 3 new albums in the last 2 years.

 

[LegendKiller]

Which is why we should all run out and get a BD+ enhanced Blu-Ray player!!!

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Am I allowed to sing a song in the shower without paying royalties?

LOL Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
For you to steal something, you have to TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE, however since digitally there is an infinite number of copies lying around, no matter how many times I download an album, I will never hurt the band or label, because I am not taking away from them at all! At the most, they get 0$ profit from me, which would happen either I downloaded or not

That's because to you and me, downloading != loss of sale. To them, downloading = loss of sale. Therefore, you are stealing money/profits away from the company.

 

[ryan256]

We all know the media companies won't be happy until they have a pay-per-play-per-device system forced upon us. So even if we own the media we have to continually pay to listen to/use it.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

So, when Sony releases mp3 players and CD ripping software, they are actually guilty of entrapment? 'Cause they entice consumers to "steal" the music from CDs?

Hmmm... maybe that's a good angle of attack next time there's a lawsuit....

F*CK SONY!

What artists do they have on their roster, anyway? There's a list on their BMG website: Avril Lavigne, Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Rod Stewart, Il Divo, Tony Bennett, Alicia Keys, Dixie Chicks, Shakira, John Mayer, Beyonce, Destiny's Child, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood and Foo Fighters.

Sorry, but I think *I* should be PAID to listen to any of those... not the other way around... AFAIK, that music is not worth the download (bandwidth, electricity, plus a couple of 50-cent recordable discs)

 

[TheAdvocate]

In the past 7 or so years, I have not wavered from the opinion that if the media publishers would just reduce the cost of recorded media to a fair price, instead of gouging customers for huge markups that the artists never see a real piece of, then there wouldn't be any real pirating going on.

Who is going to bother to pirate a $5 CD or a $7 DVD? It's worth that much just for the packaging and clean, quality reproduction. The media labels/publishers have screwed this up by basing their earnings model on the content, rather than the packaging, when packaging and distribution is their purpose for existence. The artists are the ones who should be paid for the content, not the publishers.

Lower the prices. Give all artists a fairer share of content profits. And stop asking us to subsidize A&R tony's cocaine, hookers, & hair plugs.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: DnetMHZ
99.9% of music today sucks so bad it's not even worth stealing, let alone buying. I've acquired maybe 3 new albums in the last 2 years.

QFT

the only new albums I've purchased were Tool - 10k days and RHCP - stadium arcadium

the rest have been pre 2000 albums: other tool albums, gnr albums, pink floyd albums, etc

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Which is why we should all run out and get a BD+ enhanced Blu-Ray player!!!

yes, a major selling point is that its got uber drm!

and yea i've only bought maybe 4 albums in the last 2 years

course part of it was because i really didn't want to send money to the riaa, they make you feel dirty handing over money at all.

i'm still dissapointed their paranoia murdered next gen audio formats now we are still purchasing technically inferior format, whether cd or file formats. allofmp3 also helped... funny it feels less dirty giving money to russian pirates than to the riaa.

 

[biggestmuff]

I still don't understand how people that post on a technology driven site like Anandtech, still purchase and praise Sony and their products.

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I still don't understand how people that post on a technology driven site like Anandtech, still purchase and praise Sony and their products.

I for one do not.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I still don't understand how people that post on a technology driven site like Anandtech, still purchase and praise Sony and their products.

I'd venture a guess that none of us praise Sony and the vast majority of remotely tech savy people realize that Sony makes mediocre and grossly overpriced products. In short, Sony is for idiots who don't know any better.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
I still don't understand how people that post on a technology driven site like Anandtech, still purchase and praise Sony and their products.

I'd venture a guess that none of us praise Sony and the vast majority of remotely tech savy people realize that Sony makes mediocre and grossly overpriced products. In short, Sony is for idiots who don't know any better.

You don't visit "Audio/Video & Home Theater" or "Console Gaming", do you?

 

[Raduque]

Bah. What's next, suing people coming out of the music section of walmart who are empty handed?

DIAF sony.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
In the past 7 or so years, I have not wavered from the opinion that if the media publishers would just reduce the cost of recorded media to a fair price, instead of gouging customers for huge markups that the artists never see a real piece of, then there wouldn't be any real pirating going on.

Who is going to bother to pirate a $5 CD or a $7 DVD? It's worth that much just for the packaging and clean, quality reproduction. The media labels/publishers have screwed this up by basing their earnings model on the content, rather than the packaging, when packaging and distribution is their purpose for existence. The artists are the ones who should be paid for the content, not the publishers.

Lower the prices. Give all artists a fairer share of content profits. And stop asking us to subsidize A&R tony's cocaine, hookers, & hair plugs.

I would absolutely pay 5 bucks for a CD and 7 for a DVD rather than pirating it.. because I'm that lazy. In fact, I'm so lazy, I don't even pirate things anymore .. I just don't feel like putting up with all the BS. I'd rather just not listen to the awful new mass produced music. At least some of the small local touring bands sell their CDs for like 8-10 bucks out of a suitcase. Sure, they may not be the most brilliant musicians, but at least they're not trying to bend me over.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Dirigible
Read the copyright laws. They're right. Ripping a CD you buy to play on an MP3 player is not legal. It's an unauthorized copy.

Please provide the section(s) of copyright law you are referring to. I don't think it exists.

 

[bvalpati]

Soon people will be required to have monitoring devices implanted inside their ears and will be automatically charged every time they hear any copyrighted material.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: soydios
so the DMCA's "Fair Use" provision doesn't apply anymore?

Fair Use = how much vasaline they stick on their weewee's before they stick it up your bum.
It's fair that they put vasaline on it that way, in their eyes, they aren't raping you.

 

[Ronstang]

If these idiots put as much energy into developing new business models and finding a modern way to make a buck they would make a lot more money than they are standing around stuck in the 60's calling everyone a thief.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Dirigible
Read the copyright laws. They're right. Ripping a CD you buy to play on an MP3 player is not legal. It's an unauthorized copy.

Please provide the section(s) of copyright law you are referring to. I don't think it exists.

17 U.S.C. Section 106.

"... the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords..."

So if Sony is the owner of the copyrighted CD, they have the exclusive right to authorize copying from CD to MP3 form. Yes, you're making a copy - "reproducing" it - when you rip a CD. Otherwise you couldn't hold your CD in your right hand and your MP3 player with MP3s of the ripped music in your left hand. In this example, if Sony hasn't authorized it, you can't do it without violating this section of the law.

Next question is, do any of 17 U.S.C. 107-122 carve out an exception? I'm not a copyright lawyer, but looking through it, the best shot seems to be 17 U.S.C. section 107, which is the "Fair Use" one. On the face of it, that code section does not explicitly allow ripping from CD to MP3. There may be case law that interprets the law to say ripping from CD to MP3 [edit] is ok [/edit], but I don't know of any such cases. (Again, I'm not a copyright lawyer.)

I'd be interested to read caselaw that rules CD ripping is not a violation of copyright, if anyone has information on such a case.

 

[JackBurton]

So what do they call, when people download discography torrents? Looting?