Has the RIAA gone insane?
RIAA: Copying CDs to your iPod not protected under fair use
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
In an effort to ensure that nobody is sympathetic to it, the RIAA's filing to the US copyright office indicates that it does not support people beig able to take their legally purchased CDs and copy that music onto their legally purchased iPod even if they are the only one using it.
Ripping music from CDs and transferring it to an iPod does not constitute fair use, according to a document filed by the major record companies.
In a filing to the US Copyright Office, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) attempts to undo a statement it made in court during the recent successful prosecution of the Grokster p2p company.
In court RIAA lawyer Don Verrilli said: 'The record companies have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.'
However in the Copyright Office filing the RIAA takes a contrary view.
'Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization,' it argues. 'In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorisation, not about fair use.'
In other words, explained Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the EFF, a leading digital rights campaign organisation, if you want to copy a CD to your iPod, get permission first.
As one of the people who actually does not pirate music but buys it legally, this really gets on my nerves. At some point, EVERYONE becomes a criminal in the RIAA's book. The idea that I can't take my legally purchased Star Wars CDs and put them onto my computer to listen to in iTunes is absurd.
 |
|
Page 3 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #42 Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:33 PM
I dont buy music online because its all DRM-crippled. Why should I pay for a restricted use product?
I dont buy music any more because the RIAA have made it so unattractive to me the consumer.
Reply #43 Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:47 PM
| They are granted broadcast rights....for a fee.... |
Actually there was a recent scandal that record labels were paying radio stations to play more of their client's songs.
The RIAA couldn't care less about the rights of the artist. If music piracy didn't affect profits, there would be no argument. This is assuming that piracy is the reason for the fall in profits.
Reply #44 Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:07 PM
| Actually there was a recent scandal that record labels were paying radio stations to play more of their client's songs. |
In Oz there was a show on Telly called Countdown....if you bed the presenter you'd get on the show...[last time I saw him he was dancing up close and personal with some Collingwood footballers]...
Reply #45 Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:36 PM
Reply #46 Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:57 PM
There's nothing wrong with owning and using a mp3 player, mp3 is just another recording format. It's how you use it which may be illegal.
Copyright laws in the UK/Europe are quite strict under the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) . Here's a quote from vnunet:
| Individuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
Even if this is for personal use they theoretically face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine, and possible civil action from copyright holders. |
Reply #47 Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:13 PM
Reply #48 Friday, February 24, 2006 7:32 AM
| Remember when you tell who the artist was by the time you heard the first line of the song. Or when George Harrison got sued and lost over three little notes. I seldom listen to new music these days because it all sounds so similar, down to the notes and especially the voices. It's like anytime someone hits every producer is looking for someone who sounds exactly like them. Wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if the whole industry collapsed because the crap they put out and promote isn't worth the time or money. Getting too old I guess. |
I buy precious few CDs nowadays. Partly beacuse it's too expensive, but also because of the above facts. All mainstream pop/rock music sounds more or less the same -- voices, melodies, rhythms, arrangements, productions. And even if there are a few mainstream artists whose music I like (like Dave Matthews Band, Sting and Robbie Williams) I'm reluctant to buy their albums. Why? Well, they're signed to big labels and the money I pay to a big label will mainly be used for a) promoting crap artists on the same label, and
funding organisations like the RIAA. So no deal. I'll willingly buy a CD to suppport a small artist on an indie label (that's where you'll have to look in the first place if you don't want music that's completely braindead), but all the big labels and the artists on their collective leash can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.Besides, I don't know why some people here have brought up that "the artists have a right to be paid, so the RIAA isn't all bad" issue. Of course they have a right to be paid, but the RIAA isn't about protecting the artists' interests. It's about making sure the big companies retain their stranglehold on the music industry. The thing that baffles me most is this though: how come that the RIAA can't see that the more desperate they get and the more restrictions they try to put on everything, the less people will be inclined to obtain music legally?
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Reply #49 Friday, February 24, 2006 3:28 PM
Let me ask this though: If I download a disc from the iTunes store and, after coping it to my iPod I burn it on a disc and listen to it at home, am I also in the wrong?
(edited by admin) RIAA.
Reply #50 Friday, February 24, 2006 7:29 PM
Reply #51 Friday, February 24, 2006 10:05 PM
sad, the music industry wants you to purchase their product's but then want to have ya arrested for actually useing it...
Reply #52 Friday, February 24, 2006 11:57 PM
Reply #53 Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:39 AM
If this were truly about protecting artists' rights I could see some kind of
logic/reasoning....but it's not. This is all about upper level power and greed, thus it is self serving and has no real relevance to authors/composers/artists rights or earnings. Their slice of the revenue pie is not really on the agenda here, given that it has always been the smallest slice and a pittance for their works.
We obviously need laws, order and structure in society, but it seems the powers that be have gone legislation/restriction mad in recent times. There are very few areas of our lives left untouched by some kind of intrusive intervention from 'above' us.
Our health and family lives are affected by legislation...our work, leisure and recreational pursuits are affected/restricted by legislation.
The RIAA is just taking another step towards the creation of a police state, dictatorship within a democracy....and often what happens in the U.S. flows on to the rest of the world, via trade agreements and the like. Hence, the biggest pirating operations work out of Asia, siezing upon the opportunity to fill a void/need created by over-regulation, over-pricing and intrusive DRM measures that deter consumers worldwide.
Given that pirated/hacked versions are DRM free, they are, in fact, a better quality and safer product to purchase....so naturally an exodus towards these items will occur when the industry giants' greed over-rides their common sense. Without the consumer, an artist/author/composer is nothing, in a profitable sense, so it would seem logical to protect the consumer in order to keep the artists/industries alive.
The location of many illegal/pirate operations are well known by the industries and authorities alike, but do they attempt to close down these 'greater' threats to profits/revenue....no, they'd rather penalise honest consumers with inconveniencing and potentially harmful measures that do nothing to prevent 'genuine' piracy.
Democracy is supposed to be about liberty and the freedom of speech....but that freedom is of little or no use when nobody 'up there' is listening.
Reply #54 Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:46 AM
When I buy songs at iTunes, I get a message telling me to make a backup, just in case I lose the songs I purchased.
Does Apple have the right to suggest this? How can they make that suggestion if it's wrong to do so. Does this mean I'm breaking some law when I do make a backup?
This is all just nuts. I'm not giving my songs to anyone, I'm just listening to music. It used to be enjoyable.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:25 PM
As a singer/songwriter, I would not want my work just downloaded, given away freely to the masses. As this is my chosen profession to make a living on. Myself or any other entertainer does not do anything for free. We expect to get paid just like anyone working any 9 to 5 job does. You work you get paid! Simple.
Now lets look at the Record Companies. They like to overcharge across the board for everything. They even own their own CD pressing manufacturing plants. They don't have to hire anyone to do this stuff for them. They do all of the printing, publishing, advertising ( Some of it free btw, by going into record stores and such posting posters and announcements of upcoming tours and releases ), as well packaging. Granted to put a big name artist on tour, they do have to hire our for some things. But for the most part they're self suffeciant.
They themselves have made the world want to pirate music by the outrageous prices they charge on CD's that they make for a cost of pennies on a dollar. Which is why a lot of artists, including myself, could care less if we ever were to sign our life away to some major lable just to lose our rights for a quick buck. We choose to get them pressed and packaged ourselves and can charge a fair price by promoting at shows and on the Internet. But if we found our CD's being mass downloaded for FREE? We'd surely at some point have to do some of the same ( Not to the degree ) that record companies do because people think they shouldn't have to pay for what they can get for FREE even if it's wrong.
As far as iPods and the like, I could care less if anyone uploads mine to a computer to put on an iPod. That is a media that neither myself or a record company can make recordings for. So if you want to listen to my stuff on a iPod, go right ahead. The recording industry for a long time has been fighting to keep their monoply in place so they can strong arm the public. I hope they fail on this one.
Like I said, there is times when I agree with the copyright laws, as they protect my way of earning a living. But that doesn't mean I agree with the ways of RIAA. They're far far too greedy for me to agree with.