They just keep going, and going, and going.....

So get this... you buy a CD.. you CAN NOT copy it to your computer, or iPOD legally according to the RIAA.. you have made an unauthorized copy...

So let me get this straight Mr. RIAA... I buy a CD So I can play it on my CD player, then I have to go to iTUNES to get a digital copy so I can put it on my iPOD?... Then I have to go buy the tape so I can listen to it on my tapedeck?.. Do I have to buy another digital copy from iTUNES so I can play it on my music server????

WTF!!!!! This is getting out of control.. I can't wait until the RIAA dies a fast death.. This could make a law breaker out of just about every single American that has an iPOD or computer if this guy loses this lawsuit...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html?hpid=topnews

Here's another worded version.. interesting, more the way I feel...

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/12/29/riaa-target-everyone-who-has-ever-ripped-a-legally-bought-cd/

Now what I really want to know is.. if this guy hadn't been sharing the songs that were on his computer, how did the RIAA have any clue this guy had 2000 songs on his computer? Are they starting to hack into computers now... OH.. excuse me.. not STARTING.. just looking closer.. ????

can you say bite the hand that feeds you?

sooner or later, the RIAA is going to pizz off the music buying public for their tactics.

...and therein lies the crux of their 'grievance'.

If the RIAA had their way, then yes. You would need to purchase another copy for your PC.

And another for your Ipod.

And another for your car stereo

And so on and so on. The reason isn't at all opaque: It would increase sales by 400+ %

That's EXACTLY what they want. To hell with "Fair use", which the Supreme Court has already ruled to be legal.

My understanding of fair use is this: If I buy a CD, LP, or tape, then I can copy individual tracks from this and other CD's and mix them onto a CD-R/cassette/reel to reel that is to be listened to in my own home. There is no limit to the number of copies I make nor the format(s), as long as I am the only end user of them.

What I CANNOT (legally) do is buy a CD and put it online for others to copy on an unlimited basis. I also cannot make or sell copies of that CD for other people. Likewise, I cannot borrow a CD from someone else and copy it for my own library. (as an aside here, surely all of us have made dubs and swapped LP's/CD's from our buddies. Chances of prosecution there is essentially nonexistant. But it is *TECHNICALLY* illegal.)

The legal gray area (and the main point of contention among most folks) is: where do you draw the distinction between 'fair use' and outright theft? If I purchase a CD and my buddy purchases another CD, we each make a copy of one for another, is that theft? So while two purchases were made, ultimately four copies will exist. The RIAA will argue that they are 'out' 50% of sales. But the copies would end there.

Now look at the other side. One person buys a CD and converts all the tracks into MP3 format and uploads them, allowing anyone who stumbles across the website to download them for free. Each person theoretically being able to create CD's for all HIS friends, and all their friends, and so forth. Or what about people who specifically target such web sites to create a music library with the predetermined and premeditated motivation to circumvent any and all possible purchases? Now you have one purchase, but thousands or possibly millions of 'free' copies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DL-Allocations

I think what they RIAA is trying to do is change the fair use laws... Being as they lost the LP to Tape argument years ago, now that two new media types are involved, they are trying again to push you to have to buy each media type you use.. thinking fair use only covered the old formats...

Either way, they just keep killing off their customers and making it worse.. You just have to wonder how people supposedly "business savvy" and running such a large organization could be so stupid as to keep beating their customers, and thinking it will start putting more money back into their pockets.. How many more percentage points must their sales drop before they realize they've got the wrong model?

The beatings will continue until compliance is met, and our coffers are refilled.

Fuck 'em.

I'm with ya Celt.. That's the attitude I've had from the day they shut down napster. I have quit buying CD's since then...

I just can't wait to watch them fold up and close the doors.. I'm sure labels will eventually figure it out they can survive without the RIAA, and probably be more profitable..

The artists that want to be on the radio will probably continue on the way things are. Many independant artists and labels are taking a different route by direct purchase or downloads and that's where some of the really great music is at these days.

I don't see any classical downloads around, but both Amazon and BMG are begging me to take CDs at bargain prices so no way am I paying $16 or $18 a piece. I can also burn cassettes or RTR tapes from the FM since the local classical station plays the whole piece, uninterrupted.

Now what I really want to know is.. if this guy hadn't been sharing the songs that were on his computer, how did the RIAA have any clue this guy had 2000 songs on his computer? Are they starting to hack into computers now... OH.. excuse me.. not STARTING.. just looking closer.. ????

I think he must've been sharing them, or had a share open thru a download service. Then either the RIAA ignored the sharing law, or nobody was uploading his files, or they didn't see any upload activity for his shared files. So they went after the copy deal.

There's a lot of unfair laws in this country/world, it just adds to the pile.

I don't like it, but I see where their thinking is coming from...Possibly. Lots of us have WAY more than one device that will reproduce music, correct ? Most of us have a receiver/tuner, TT, coaster spinner, R2R, Cassette deck, some iconoclasts even have 8 track decks...We don't whine about buying umpteen different kinds of THOSE, do we ? Nope. A lot of us get a great deal of enjoyment buying-at CONSIDERABLE cost-as many different types of "sources" as we can...Why, then, and follow me, should we squeal like stuck pigs when asked to pony up for getting the "material" ? We've already laid out the heavy duty bread for the equipment, the "material" cost itself is generally negligable. I can see where this thinking of the RIAA's comes from. I DON'T agree w/it-I think they're incredibly greedy loathsome bastards, but they are just trying to get the greatest return for themselves & their clients as they can, in a dwindling market. I think, though, that technology has passed them by, they are somewhat analogous to a buggy-whip mfger in 1910, & they realise this, but they are trying to hang on for dear life as long as they can. But ANY system that makes lawbreakers out of 90% of its clients is morally wrong & reprehensible, & this is exactly what they're trying to do.

They will go away, don't worry.

Unlike the movie industry they have failed to adapt and take advantage of emerging technology. They are being punished by consumers and sales continue to fall through the roof and they spend all their time chasing lawbreakers. If they fight consumers, they lose. If they don't fight consumers, they lose.

The only way they had to get out of this inevitable decline was by innovating and taking advantage of the new opportunities that digital files present, but they failed miserably. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

I find it sad, but it doesn't bother me. Soon the industry will be the Kmart/Sears of the entertainment industry -- a low profit, low clout relic of the past.

dew.

But even here it doesn't say it's against the law, just "won’t usually raise concerns" ???? I really dont get it. How can anyone know if they're breaking a law when it's not crystal clear what the law is???

http://www.riaa.org/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law

Confiscated over 3.5 million burned cd's in 2005? (and 3000 cassettes, haha jeez)

http://www.riaa.org/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_annual_ comm_reports

If they ever decide to crack down on the Goodwill, then I will start to have a problem.

They will go away, don't worry.

Unlike the movie industry they have failed to adapt and take advantage of emerging technology. They are being punished by consumers and sales continue to fall through the roof and they spend all their time chasing lawbreakers. If they fight consumers, they lose. If they don't fight consumers, they lose.

I would say that the movie industry is even worse than the RIAA. It's just that technology hasn't quite caught up to the movie industry. Downloading movies, and copying DVDs is still more trouble than most casual computer users will bother with.

Remember that it is unquestionably illegal to copy a DVD to your iPod, or PC. It's even illegal to have the tools that allow you to do this. iTunes won't copy DVDs to your iPod the way it can with CDs because it's illegal. Look at all the copy protection crap we have to deal with on movies (Macrovision, HDMI, HDCP, region coding, DRM,...). The MPAA has a large amount of control in the way video devices work. It's actually illegal to make a video recorder that doesn't detect Macrovision copy protection. Macrovision must love the fact that the use of their product is compulsory. The record industry has pretty much given up on copy protection of CDs and is even trying DRM free downloads. Get back to me when a major movie is released on DVD/HDDVD/BD without copy protection, or when I can download it with no DRM!

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp

Here is a great website dedicated to stomping out riaa affiliates records. I say fuck em' too. I don't buy albums, i download. I currently own around 50cd's and 50 or so LP's. Other then the SACD's i just purchased (15 of them at once). I have maybe bought 2 or so cd's a year since napster. The crap produced today just ain't worth it. Most of the stuff I legitimately own was recorded before my birth.

Current tally? 60gb or so of flac and 320 MP3's. 6500 songs.

If they ever decide to crack down on the Goodwill, then I will start to have a problem.

Something I've kinda wondered about.. You can buy home recorded tapes off ebay, from good will, and a lot of thrifts, and yet they never seem to do anything about that... Still selling a priated copy.... Seems the RIAA would rather go after ebay first?... or.. maybe not.. they have big dollars and won't roll over..

What I am seeing here is, if they DO by some strange way manage to get it passed saying copying a CD to the computer or iPOD is illegal, then it seems M$ and Apple, and a lot of other third party companies will also be serious law breakers because they made the software that allows us to copy...

WHICH.. I can't see the RIAA wanting to take on Apple or M$.. but then again, I don't think they have thought that far ahead if they are trying to get written into law by precedence that any copy is illegal...

The RIAA should change it's name to RMG - Recorded Music Gestapo! :uzi:
Pretty soon it will be illegal to let anyone other than yourself hear the music you are playing on your gear! :sigh:

Pretty soon it will be illegal to let anyone other than yourself hear the music you are playing on your gear! :sigh:

Yeah, hopefully they won't walk in and catch my wife listening to the music I bought... I can't afford their "fees"

Now look at the other side. One person buys a CD and converts all the tracks into MP3 format and uploads them, allowing anyone who stumbles across the website to download them for free. Each person theoretically being able to create CD's for all HIS friends, and all their friends, and so forth. Or what about people who specifically target such web sites to create a music library with the predetermined and premeditated motivation to circumvent any and all possible purchases? Now you have one purchase, but thousands or possibly millions of 'free' copies.



This is exactly what the guy in the Washington Post article was doing and why he got busted. He had placed his entire music collection in the shared folder of his computer and was also using a P2P torrent program so that anyone could access them. The Post article is not very accurate in describing the situation.

From what I've read the only new legal precendent set by this verdict was that the RIAA no longer have to show that people actually downloaded the songs for there to be infringement. Now they just have to show that you have made copyright material available for download.

If you don't transfer music across a PUBLICLY available peer network the RIAA will not bother you (yet).

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp

Here is a great website dedicated to stomping out riaa

I use that website, too, and would have posted it if you hadn't beat me to it :nono: I've been using it for awhile now, too, but mostly for me it doesn't make a ton of difference anyway - I'm mostly a metalhead and most good metal isn't produced by RIAA labels anyway - labels like Century Media, Nuclear Blast, Metal Blade, Steamhammer, and the like, are all independent labels.

Still, there are big metal labels like Roadrunner, Combat, and Sanctuary are part of the RIAA. If I find that a title I want is "sponsored" by the RIAA, and I just have to have it, I'll buy used - after all, the RIAA only makes money on the initial sale!

Actually, I tend to buy used anyway - but Amazon.com sellers, FYE, local shops, and garage sales are all great places to buy used albums. Plus, it costs less, and that's something we can all appreciate! :thmbsp:

These bestids would like to bust you if you OWN a recorder, blank tape, computer...They wanna be as bad as the BATF...if you have certain parts of an M-16, you ARE guilty of owning a machine gun, irregardless if you have the rest of the gun or not..If you own an AR-15 w/a HOLE drilled in a certain place on the receiver, you have a machine gun, irregardless.

This is exactly what the guy in the Washington Post article was doing and why he got busted. He had placed his entire music collection in the shared folder of his computer and was also using a P2P torrent program so that anyone could access them. The Post article is not very accurate in describing the situation.

From what I've read the only new legal precendent set by this verdict was that the RIAA no longer have to show that people actually downloaded the songs for there to be infringement. Now they just have to show that you have made copyright material available for download.

If you don't transfer music across a PUBLICLY available peer network the RIAA will not bother you (yet).

True, this is what happened, and I found that out after I started this post, but what is also happening is, they are trying to get the part about "unauthorized" and making copies, even not shared, written into the precedence of this case, as to where it will make all of us outlaws if the court isn't careful about how they make their ruling...

They are trying for a backdoor loophole way to do away with the "fair use" laws from what I'm understanding.

I tend to buy used anyway - but Amazon.com sellers, FYE, local shops, and garage sales are all great places to buy used albums.

Add to that list antique shops.

I picked up 130 albums yesterday from one... A lot of really good stuff too...

Cream, Zep, Rory, Lizzy, Iron Butterfly, Scorpians, Def Lepard, Clapton, Parsons... a hell of a nice collection, all for just a little over $1.00 per album, and most all in really great shape :thmbsp:

All this reminds of the the complete and utter bullshit that BMI and ASCrAP pulled in the 80's. They went around trying to fine restaurants, gas stations, ANYPLACE that dared play music, (even from radio!) for not paying them licensing fees.

Since I wasn't informed that I couldn't copy my cds to my computer when I purchased them where do I go to get a refund for the approximately 700 cds that I own? At $10 to $15 dollars a piece I could really use that money right now. I'm also stealing tv because I dvr almost everything I watch and fast forward through the commercials.

They are trying for a backdoor loophole way to do away with the "fair use" laws from what I'm understanding.

I agree that the RIAA are trying to expand their rights and nobody can deny that after their lawyer made the "steal one copy" comment. All of their efforts to date have failed to return the music industry to its formerly hugely profitable status and they have no new ideas so they're trying to squeeze more cash from that tired old business model.

I hope the courts slap them hard if they ever use the "steal one copy" rationale as a central point in a case. There is no way that making an mp3 or digital copy for personal use is violating any law.

Exactly Scuzzer... I really believe this is the point the media is trying to make too, only they sure did leave a little out while trying to cut to the chase.

I do hate to see what they are pointing out though. Hopefully this get more exposure, and the judge that will be ruling in this case is a little smarter than the average RIAA attorney..

Add to that list antique shops.

Quite true, but I'm young and don't have a turntable anyway (yet :tears:)...I suppose when I was talking about great places to buy used albums I should have said used CDs...Amazon and FYE aren't great places to satisfy a hunger for vinyl, but then again antique shops aren't good places to find CDs...yet :music:

My Onkyo doesn't even have a phono preamp :( I think my Marantz does...but I'm 90 miles away from it!

I don't see any classical downloads around, ...

Rob,

Check out magnatunes.com (http://magnatune.com/). Lots of great chamber and solo works for download at the price YOU pick. Great company motto, too: "We Are Not Evil".

I would LOVE to find the lawyer(s) that thought up this backdoor ploy, and put their computers and their FAMILIES (even grandkids if applicable) computers under a microscope for violations....

Even better I would like to get them on the stand in Court, get them to SWEAR they're in complete RIAA compliance, prove perjury, and lock em up for contempt of court.

I think it's about time that the anonymity of these "law firms" and attorneys was busted, and they can be called account for the consequences of their actions in the free market in which they market their services. Turn over the rock and watch the bugs scuttle for cover.

It's about time we stopped just hating the "RIAA", or "Sony" or "Virgin Records" and started hating "dewey cheatem and howe" and "joe blowe shyster esq".

...the judge that will be ruling in this case is a little smarter than the average RIAA attorney..

I think it's pretty clear that the average RIAA attorney is a dimwit who can't get a job anywhere else.

Here is what I don't get about their argument. When I buy a CD (especially the crappy compressed ones), I paid for the use of that music at any given time. It's pretty clear that the license to use (listen) which comes with the purchase of that CD is for the content (the crappy, compressed musinc on it), not for the piece of plastic it's printed on.

So when I transfer that music (the license to listen to which I bought) to my iPod, I'm still listening to that one piece of music under the bought license.

Now, I understand I would be violating the copyright laws if I listened to the CD and the MP3, iPod version AT THE SAME TIME, because I own the license to listening to ONE COPY AT A TIME, not two.

So if I transfer to that music to my RTR (waste of tape), and then listen to ALL THREE AT THE SAM TIME, I'm being criminal, yes?

The software companies put out software that they tell you you can copy or load on another computer as long as you only USE ONE COPY AT A TIME.

Of course I do understantd that if I read a book to my kids I'm in violation of the copyright laws?

Perhaps we need to come down to the level of intelligence of the average RIAA lawer to understand the logic...

I think it's pretty clear that the average RIAA attorney is a dimwit who can't get a job anywhere else.

Perhaps we need to come down to the level of intelligence of the average RIAA lawer to understand the logic...


I share your guys frustration. I really do. And I agree with the post above. But there IS another side to this that seldom gets reported.

Many buzzards...I mean lawyers of this ilk are frequently ENCOURAGED by Corporate America to go on fishing and shakedown expeditions like this.

What drives most business?

Yep.

The bottom line.

If it's cheaper to settle out of court (read: PAY OFF) the attorneys as opposed to actually fighting these cases for the BS that they are, which might actually put an end to it, then guess what: they're going to keep doing it.

Instead of bean counters actually having the cajones to stand up to these bottom feeders...even if it costs more up front (and yes, it may effect next quarters earnings), we'll all save in the long run. Because if any attorney thinks suddenly he might draw his gun out and find one pointed right back at him, he'll think twice next time. But as long as it makes "more business sense" to just write a check to make it 'go away', then that only encourages more of it.

Then. And only then will this legalized extortion go away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DL-An American wonders what he can make today. A Japanese wonders what he can make in his LIFE.

I would LOVE to find the lawyer(s) that thought up this backdoor ploy, and put their computers and their FAMILIES (even grandkids if applicable) computers under a microscope for violations....

Even better I would like to get them on the stand in Court, get them to SWEAR they're in complete RIAA compliance, prove perjury, and lock em up for contempt of court.

I think it's about time that the anonymity of these "law firms" and attorneys was busted, and they can be called account for the consequences of their actions in the free market in which they market their services. Turn over the rock and watch the bugs scuttle for cover.

It's about time we stopped just hating the "RIAA", or "Sony" or "Virgin Records" and started hating "dewey cheatem and howe" and "joe blowe shyster esq".


The lawyer's are doing their jobs. When you are paid to represent a client you do so without prejudice. They are paid to find every possible loophole/backdoor and exploit it to win the case. That's what creates precedent for future cases and that's how laws are created or amended.

The lawyer's are doing their jobs. When you are paid to represent a client you do so without prejudice. They are paid to find every possible loophole/backdoor and exploit it to win the case. That's what creates precedent for future cases and that's how laws are created or amended.

Like a previous poster said, it's all about the bottom line! I'm sure these lawyers are doing their jobs, and they are most assuredly working on a percentage basis. So, the more money they can legally extort from the public the more money goes into their pockets! Then, it is to their advantage to try and come up with new ways to bend the laws to their benefit. :scratch2:
I liken them to the enforcers for the mob, they will make you pay one way or another.:whip:
Litigation lawyers will be the ultimate downfall of the United States! :tears:
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

These bestids would like to bust you if you OWN a recorder, blank tape, computer...They wanna be as bad as the BATF...if you have certain parts of an M-16, you ARE guilty of owning a machine gun, irregardless if you have the rest of the gun or not..If you own an AR-15 w/a HOLE drilled in a certain place on the receiver, you have a machine gun, irregardless.

Actually, RIAA hired a former ATF director as their head doorkicker. They have done raids, including gun toting, uh, enforcers with SWAT-like uniforms to go into record stores and seize counterfeit tapes and CD's. Not real cops, just working for RIAA, but doing police type raids with guns drawn.

Where this fellow got in trouble was he placed his music in a shared folder that was used by the file sharing program he had on his computer. So, he was not just sharing games, but that music was distributed to thousands of other users of that file sharing service.

Had he just used his copied music for his own private use he would not be in the trouble he is in now.

It is one thing to make a CD copy of an LP, so that you can listen to the music, but preserve the LP from constant wear. Or make a copy to have in your car. It is an entirely different situation to "share" your recorded music with thousands of other people.

I hardly ever buy a new cd.
I buy alot of used cds from goodwill, local used cd store, or from ebay.
The RIAA pissed me off years ago, and now I try to only support non RIAA artists. I've found tons of independent record labels that have great artists on them. I support those artists buy going to their live shows, buying tshirts, and cds - and get them signed.
I say fuck the RIAA.

Rob,

Check out magnatunes.com (http://magnatune.com/). Lots of great chamber and solo works for download at the price YOU pick. Great company motto, too: "We Are Not Evil".


Thanks for the link. Some good stuff there, plus a free daily download. If the major labels would do something like that, folks might respect them enough to buy the crap they put out to help support them.

This here is a bit of fresh air. http://magnatune.com/info/give Gotta love it. :yes:

Damn, you Americans like to sue people a lot :D:D. In any case, a MP3 isn't a copy... it's a dodgy copy. Hardly 1:1.

If the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) starts pulling this crap, I'll tell them where to get off. They do make a lot of ads though relating to piracy.

In any case, a MP3 isn't a copy... it's a dodgy copy. Hardly 1:1.

I was thinking about this the other day. Technically wouldn't the RIAA have to go after a guy for using a sample, not for copying? Just drinking a few beers here, and running off at the mind.

All this reminds of the the complete and utter bullshit that BMI and ASCrAP pulled in the 80's. They went around trying to fine restaurants, gas stations, ANYPLACE that dared play music, (even from radio!) for not paying them licensing fees.
They are starting to do that again.
The RIAA should change it's name to RMG - Recorded Music Gestapo! :uzi:
Pretty soon it will be illegal to let anyone other than yourself hear the music you are playing on your gear! :sigh:

I think they are working towards a pay per play setup, like was tried with movies on the Divx discs and players from Circuit City you bought the player discs were cheap like $5 you could watch it 3 times then had to pay more for future plays or unlocking for unlimited plays.

I think they are working towards a pay per play setup, like was tried with movies on the Divx discs and players from Circuit City you bought the player discs were cheap like $5 you could watch it 3 times then had to pay more for future plays or unlocking for unlimited plays.

You know, I think that when that happens, the sales of vinyl will skyrocket.

Also, as an aside, I heard that Microsoft had something that was like you paid and after 30 days or so, the song would just dissapear off of your hard drive or portable music player. The guy writing about it was all enthusiastic, saying "Why buy the cow when you can rent the milk?" I was fuming when I read that.

. . . I can't wait until the RIAA dies a fast death.. This could make a law breaker out of just about every single American that has an iPOD or computer if this guy loses this lawsuit...

And you missed everyone who ever owned a tape deck of any sort. Well, any one that recorded. 99.99% of the tape decks I sold in the 60s and 70s were used for convenience copies of software the customer purchased.

Yes, you are right about it all. I just wanted to put in my two cents worth. (I used to know how to put in a cent sign, but I'm getting older by the second!)

:thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp:

.02¢

You can just copy and paste that :D

.02¢

You can just copy and paste that :D

Ummmm, smilost, that's 2 ONE HUNDREDTHS of a CENT. Not 2/100 of a dollar.......

it SHOULD be: 02¢

Just had to insert that.....

hhhmm.. well.. two cents can also be written $0.02 ... so... beats me.. math was never my strong suit..

End game is clear: everyone everywhere will have to pay for every single play of any music. The program seems to be to kill off unDRMed media and criminalize all alternative to pay-per-play schemes. Keep your vinyl clean.

They just keep going, and going, and going.....

So get this... you buy a CD.. you CAN NOT copy it to your computer, or iPOD legally according to the RIAA.. you have made an unauthorized copy...

So let me get this straight Mr. RIAA... I buy a CD So I can play it on my CD player, then I have to go to iTUNES to get a digital copy so I can put it on my iPOD?... Then I have to go buy the tape so I can listen to it on my tapedeck?.. Do I have to buy another digital copy from iTUNES so I can play it on my music server????

WTF!!!!! This is getting out of control.. I can't wait until the RIAA dies a fast death.. This could make a law breaker out of just about every single American that has an iPOD or computer if this guy loses this lawsuit...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html?hpid=topnews

Here's another worded version.. interesting, more the way I feel...

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/12/29/riaa-target-everyone-who-has-ever-ripped-a-legally-bought-cd/

Now what I really want to know is.. if this guy hadn't been sharing the songs that were on his computer, how did the RIAA have any clue this guy had 2000 songs on his computer? Are they starting to hack into computers now... OH.. excuse me.. not STARTING.. just looking closer.. ????

I guess I will wait for the day that "notice" is given on the outside copy of the cd.