Those MP3 and AAC files that you've ripped from your CD collection are still "unauthorized copies" in the eyes of the recording industry. In a brief filed late last week, the RIAA said that the MP3 files on a PC owned by a file-sharing defendant who had admitted to ripping them himself were "unauthorized copies."
Atlantic v. Howell is a bit unusual because the defendants, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without the benefit of a lawyer. They were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.
The Howells have denied any copyright infringement on their part. In their response to the RIAA's lawsuit, they said that the MP3 files on their PC are and "always have been" for private use. "The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.
After several years of litigation and nearly 30,000 lawsuits, making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is still a concept that the recording industry is apparently uncomfortable with. During the Jammie Thomas trial this fall, the head of litigation from Sony BMG testified that she believed that ripping your own CDs is stealing.
When asked by the RIAA's lead counsel whether it was wrong for consumers to make copies of CDs they have purchased, Jennifer Pariser replied in the negative. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.
News source: Arstehnica.com
Atlantic v. Howell is a bit unusual because the defendants, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without the benefit of a lawyer. They were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.
The Howells have denied any copyright infringement on their part. In their response to the RIAA's lawsuit, they said that the MP3 files on their PC are and "always have been" for private use. "The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.
After several years of litigation and nearly 30,000 lawsuits, making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is still a concept that the recording industry is apparently uncomfortable with. During the Jammie Thomas trial this fall, the head of litigation from Sony BMG testified that she believed that ripping your own CDs is stealing.
When asked by the RIAA's lead counsel whether it was wrong for consumers to make copies of CDs they have purchased, Jennifer Pariser replied in the negative. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.
News source: Arstehnica.com
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
That's an argument. That isn't the law. Even judges have gotten irritated at the RIAA for bending the law. Basically thru some odd sort of events, fair use has ceased to exist. Shall I assume then that all those new fangled record players with a USB port out the back might be encouraging bad behavior. I converted several 78's for some of my Senior relatives. Obviously they don't have a 78 player and those almost 100 year old 78's probably are long out of print.
At least for now I'm on an off music moment. Sometimes on mostly off (although I certainly wouldn't want a REAL cd sitting in my car. That might encourage some bad behavior from actual thieves.)
Have plenty of movies, books and video games to keep me entertained. As well as some adult fare to keep me busy. Just the same old RIAA I guess. Running things like organized crime. Much like Bush did. Hey it's legal.. cause I told my attorney general to make it legal.
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
Don't you just love some of the RIAA fanboys who post in these threads supporting what they do. Its just sickening. How do you guys live with yourself?
And even if it was "law", that doesn't make it right. If they pass a law telling you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? Well, you probably would from your reply.
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
That's an argument. That isn't the law. Even judges have gotten irritated at the RIAA for bending the law. Basically thru some odd sort of events, fair use has ceased to exist. Shall I assume then that all those new fangled record players with a USB port out the back might be encouraging bad behavior. I converted several 78's for some of my Senior relatives. Obviously they don't have a 78 player and those almost 100 year old 78's probably are long out of print.
At least for now I'm on an off music moment. Sometimes on mostly off (although I certainly wouldn't want a REAL cd sitting in my car. That might encourage some bad behavior from actual thieves.)
Have plenty of movies, books and video games to keep me entertained. As well as some adult fare to keep me busy. Just the same old RIAA I guess. Running things like organized crime. Much like Bush did. Hey it's legal.. cause I told my attorney general to make it legal.
Wow, that is the most rediculous argument Ive ever heard.
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
Ever hear the phrase 'fair use'?
No? Apparently neither has the RIAA.
For God sake when I buy a CD, I believe I have the right to listen to its content whenever I want and i dont always carry my laptop.
I know we dont "own" the content but we have the right to listen to it even in our sleep and MP3 players made that so much easier.
Its not like the recording industry are not making billions already. GET A LIFE RIAA.
I would like to kill my boss, but it's illegal.
Pip'
Using your logic then any kind of portable player like a Zune or an iPod would also be illegal to own.
Once I hand over cash when I buy an album, I will listen to that album any way I choose. I don't care what any (twisted/fake) law says. I'm not putting it out on the internet for millions to download and it's complete BS that anyone who owns a computer and keeps music on it is treated like a criminal.
I mean it's complete BS. I like having everything on my computer because you can make it sound much better and everything is right there with a click of a mouse. You don't have to go hunting through stacks of CD's to hear a specific song. It's all right there.
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song"
Wow. So, you suppose so do you? No, it's nothing even close to stealing. Morons.
I guess it isn't official until upheld in (US) court. Other courts have already ruled on this.
I wonder if the RIAA is aware of the amount of hatred and utter contempt that they seem to generate.
Now, I believe (as most others do, I suspect) that the ripping of CDs complies with "Fair Use" of copyright. This specific example is just not court-tested, as far as I am aware.
Actually, the same goes for the TV. You are allowed to tape something off of it, but, again according strictly to the law, you have to erase tat same tape the latest after 7 days. You are not allowed to keep tapes longer than that.
I must be wrong then.
Actually, the same goes for the TV. You are allowed to tape something off of it, but, again according strictly to the law, you have to erase tat same tape the latest after 7 days. You are not allowed to keep tapes longer than that.
What about people who buy an mp3 player and purchase music through online stores (ie. apple itunes store).
Actually, the same goes for the TV. You are allowed to tape something off of it, but, again according strictly to the law, you have to erase tat same tape the latest after 7 days. You are not allowed to keep tapes longer than that.
What about people who buy an mp3 player and purchase music through online stores (ie. apple itunes store).
According to the RIAA that would be authorized use so you'd be fine. It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic the RIAA is.
Actually, the same goes for the TV. You are allowed to tape something off of it, but, again according strictly to the law, you have to erase tat same tape the latest after 7 days. You are not allowed to keep tapes longer than that.
What about people who buy an mp3 player and purchase music through online stores (ie. apple itunes store).
According to the RIAA that would be authorized use so you'd be fine. It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic the RIAA is.
Buying the mp3 through online stores would be the only way to go, as it is the only legal way to get to an mp3....as ridiculus as it sounds.
It's amazing that they werent doing this 20 years ago when people were taking cassette tapes and making their own mixes to listen to... there are tons of software out there designed to make your own mix CD's. Why not go sue little jonny for making a mix tape for his kidergarden girlfriend back in 1985... I mean seriously. It's all about greed. I dont care what format the media is in that I PAID for, but the fact is that I PAID for it, and I have the right to use my property (digital or hard copy) however I see fit.
Go screw yourselves RIAA, get a life and go do something to BENEFIT society.
I mentioned this further down, but it's the RIAA and the studios that are the biggest thieves here. They'll sign an artist and put their album out. That album goes on to make millions and the artists themselves only see a very small fraction of that. Now I know people will mention "well usually the artist gets a contract and a good amount of money up front" and don't forget that most of that money they get in the beginning goes right back to the studio when they start recording the album. This is why most new artists that get a hit song do long tours because almost all of that tour money goes right to the artist and that's where they make the real money at. This is also why more and more artists are going independent and doing it all themselves. So they have complete control over everything they create.
id like to see a link of them declaring this...
all ive heard is that we have outdated copyright laws, and the rcmp think its a waste of resources to follow up on piracy.
It appears that bill may be quashed after all:
link to cbc
It appears that bill may be quashed after all:
link to cbc
So why did the CRIA shut down Demonoid.com and various other Canadian websites?
Their upstream providers feared litigation would be more costly than keeping their customers. Lawyers are expensive even when you win your battles.
Simply unbelievable that they would state that ripping a song is the same as stealing a song.
Go **** yourselves. I paid for it. Thank you.
What a bunch of crooks.
does it never end? havent they given up yet
1. Ripping your own CDs to a playable format for your player is *NOT* stealing. It never was, and it never will be.
2. Downloading CDs that you don't own a physical copy of, is *NOT* stealing. It never was, and it never will be.
Stealing implies that one has lost property of some sort. When downloading an album, the record companies and bands have not lost any property whatsoever. In fact, it is basically invisible to them, and they have no way of knowing without using dirty tricks.
RIAA justifies this as stealing by counting it as a lost sale. This is simple mathematics. downloading does not imply not buying the CD which in turn would imply lost sale. You cannot guarantee that someone who downloads an album will not purchase it later. Many of you will argue that once someone downloads an album, they will never buy it. But the truth is, you have no idea what someone will do. Even if all your friends, or if you knew 100 people, and they NEVER buy a CD they downloaded, that does not accurately represent the entire population of people who download albums. I, in turn, cannot argue that more people will buy the CD afterwards. But what I can say, is that a downloaded album does not guarantee a lost sale.
Therefore, it cannot be considered stealing. And i hope its clear that ripping CD's you've purchased is even less related to stealing.
1. Ripping your own CDs to a playable format for your player is *NOT* stealing. It never was, and it never will be.
2. Downloading CDs that you don't own a physical copy of, is *NOT* stealing. It never was, and it never will be.
Stealing implies that one has lost property of some sort. When downloading an album, the record companies and bands have not lost any property whatsoever. In fact, it is basically invisible to them, and they have no way of knowing without using dirty tricks.
RIAA justifies this as stealing by counting it as a lost sale. This is simple mathematics. downloading does not imply not buying the CD which in turn would imply lost sale. You cannot guarantee that someone who downloads an album will not purchase it later. Many of you will argue that once someone downloads an album, they will never buy it. But the truth is, you have no idea what someone will do. Even if all your friends, or if you knew 100 people, and they NEVER buy a CD they downloaded, that does not accurately represent the entire population of people who download albums. I, in turn, cannot argue that more people will buy the CD afterwards. But what I can say, is that a downloaded album does not guarantee a lost sale.
Therefore, it cannot be considered stealing. And i hope its clear that ripping CD's you've purchased is even less related to stealing.
<snipped>
Have you heard of intellectual property, in which the owner of that "property" has exclusive rights, called copyrights, on which the owner has control on the reproduction of such property.
They never say that you are stealing, it just says that it is an unauthorized copy, because you don't have the right to make that copy. The only thing said about stealing is a personal opinion by Pariser.
Last edited by neufuse on 12 Dec 2007 - 01:05
Have you heard of intellectual property, in which the owner of that "property" has exclusive rights, called copyrights, on which the owner has control on the reproduction of such property.
They never say that you are stealing, it just says that it is an unauthorized copy, because you don't have the right to make that copy. The only thing said about stealing is a personal opinion by Pariser.
<snipped>
Have you heard of this concept called reading? Whoever's opinion it is, she's the lead counsel for the RIAA. Her opinion actually makes a difference, and she clearly stated said she thinks its stealing. In fact, she said "we", and I have no doubt she speaks for quite a number of people. And I argued that it wasn't. Even if it *was* her opinion and hers alone, that doesn't mean I can't argue it.
And by saying "You don't have the right to make that copy", you meant "I don't have the right", because I sure as hell have that right, living in Canada and all.
And with regards to intellectual property, thanks. I had no idea. What will they come up with next??
By definition, it is still not stealing. There is still no loss of property. You can, however, call it "copyright infringement", I'm sure you're familiar with the term, you intellectual property expert you. My post was mainly arguing the terms they use. Not once did I say it was legal, or even morally right or wrong.
Last edited by neufuse on 12 Dec 2007 - 01:04
Yeah, I've done the same. But theres also a matter of taste I guess, I mean I think a lot of the music out today is absolute ****, and most of it probably is, but then I'm sure there are many people older than myself who thought the music I listened to in the 90's was absolute **** as well.
The one thing that downloading albums has done for me is opened up my taste to bands I've never heard of and never get radio time, at least around where I live. The number of artists I listen to has expanded greatly. And I believe this is a good thing, and the RIAA should maybe try to manage something similar to Oink's. But I guess they are oblivious to this because they've shot themselves in the foot, many times now.
Have you heard of intellectual property, in which the owner of that "property" has exclusive rights, called copyrights, on which the owner has control on the reproduction of such property.
They never say that you are stealing, it just says that it is an unauthorized copy, because you don't have the right to make that copy. The only thing said about stealing is a personal opinion by Pariser.
<snipped>
Have you heard of this concept called reading? Whoever's opinion it is, she's the lead counsel for the RIAA. Her opinion actually makes a difference, and she clearly stated said she thinks its stealing. In fact, she said "we", and I have no doubt she speaks for quite a number of people. And I argued that it wasn't. Even if it *was* her opinion and hers alone, that doesn't mean I can't argue it.
And by saying "You don't have the right to make that copy", you meant "I don't have the right", because I sure as hell have that right, living in Canada and all.
And with regards to intellectual property, thanks. I had no idea. What will they come up with next??
By definition, it is still not stealing. There is still no loss of property. You can, however, call it "copyright infringement", I'm sure you're familiar with the term, you intellectual property expert you. My post was mainly arguing the terms they use. Not once did I say it was legal, or even morally right or wrong.
He never wasn't talking on behalf of the RIAA. He said "I suppose we can say he stole a song". And why would I be talking about Canada? RIAA represents only the recording industry on USA. Plus, what are you trying to say? That the author doesn't has copyrights over his creation on Canada?
Last edited by neufuse on 12 Dec 2007 - 01:06
You're going to have to rephrase your first two sentences because I'm not entirely sure if you're using a double negative or you made a typo.
You're missing the entire point of my original post. I'm arguing semantics basically.
And I'm trying to say that in Canada, its perfectly legal to make personal copies of your music for private use. Therefore, I am still authorized to rip my CD's. I'm well aware that the RIAA represents american record companies, but trust me their views are synonomous with the CRIA. If an author wants to sell his product in our country, he must follow our laws. He definitely has copyrights over his creation but the rights are not exactly the same.
Maybe you thought I was sayings its okay to infringe copyright in Canada, but I'm not. I'm strictly refering to ripping CD's for personal use.
You're going to have to rephrase your first two sentences because I'm not entirely sure if you're using a double negative or you made a typo.
You're missing the entire point of my original post. I'm arguing semantics basically.
And I'm trying to say that in Canada, its perfectly legal to make personal copies of your music for private use. Therefore, I am still authorized to rip my CD's. I'm well aware that the RIAA represents american record companies, but trust me their views are synonomous with the CRIA. If an author wants to sell his product in our country, he must follow our laws. He definitely has copyrights over his creation but the rights are not exactly the same.
Maybe you thought I was sayings its okay to infringe copyright in Canada, but I'm not. I'm strictly refering to ripping CD's for personal use.
Ok, sorry for missing the point.
Actually, with regards to international law and treaties, the realm of intellectual property does not automatically carry into sovereign nations other than the nation of creation and copyright. By corporate alliances, record companies cross-file copyright ownership of content in other alliance countries; physical property that is distributed by these alliances have the various stamps or disclaimers proclaiming the nations under which a particular printing is covered by whichever applicable copyright laws.
In other words, what is considered "piracy" is America may be legal in Israel or Iran only because the multinational treaties may not be in place which recognize the other country's intellectual property laws. Heck, even the EU is trying to establish their laws as their member nations have differing policies.
There is also a distinction to be made between "recognizing" and "enforcing" potentially differing interpretations of copyright laws. Although Canada recognizes American copyright, it does not follow the same rules of enforcement; this also boils down into different constitutions and interpretations and precedents thereupon. As such, "infringement" and "piracy" are terms slapped around but with different meanings.
But back to the original topic: even in the United States, "fair use" has precedents and so does the requirements of prosecution for piracy. As argued against Napster, the original "sharers" are only as responsible as Napster facilitates the process; the same basic argument is here against sharers on Kazaa. However, Napster was not uploading content for community-understood "fair use" -- meanwhile, in this case, that was strictly their intent. Should chat logs or computer logs reveal that the sharers uploaded from their personal collection per-request, then they're in deep doodoo... otherwise, it's all hearsay.
By virtue of Napster facilitating the process, all audio-playing devices (no matter their creators or licensees) which permit the playback of potentially redistributable sound files [read: beyond live radio] on media not physically purchased with all copyright-related logos [read: similar to the Canadian surcharge on blank media] are thence facilitators of potential copyright infringement and piracy and should all be sued reverse-class-action-style. Because, otherwise, that makes the entire "back-up" industry vulnerable to claims of aiding piracy (bye-bye EMC).
RIAA CEO - Look team, i need another Ferrari in my garage by summer of 08. Find a way to make lots of money to get my Ferrari and you all will receive a big bonus!
RIAA Team - Ok guys, lets find a way to make people think copying a cd they purchased to their computer for use for use on their iPod or Zune is illegal so we can get their money!
This is outrageous. Guess i have no reason to buy cd's now and might as well download music if buying music is going to be illegal soon the way things are going!
Are we paying for the license to listen to the songs on the cd, or are we paying for the cd and the contents thereof?
Either way, we've done our obligitory purchase of the songs in question. What is done with the data on the CD after that for personal, non-profit, non-broadcast, non-public performance reasons is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
Once the sale has gone through of the CD, it's YOUR property. What you do with it, as long as you're not trying to capitalize monetarily on it, is your business.
I don't buy RIAA supported artists anymore. I ardently support any organization that opposes their BS.
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.
Right, and statements like this don't make sales go up, either. Please, call your customers thieves more, then start suing because you aren't getting the sales you think you are "entitled" to.
It amazes me that people don't see through the BS when a company says they failed to make their "projected sales figures" and then blame something else for it, like people copying their CD's to mp3 format for playback on their portables.
What makes them so entitled to the sales figures they quote? Who says that their products are even WORTH purchasing??? The numbers are "predictions" based on THEIR anticipation of how THEY think sales will go. If they don't make the sales, they need to stop and look at THEIR processes and see what THEY have done to NOT earn those sales, not go off on some wild goose chase and sue 30000 people/entities.
People, the RIAA is evil, they REPRESENT THE LABELS. Don't take your anger out on RIAA. BOYCOTT THE LABELS themselves and make it well known in blogs, posts, web pages, etc, that the reason why their sales are down is A) their product, and B) RIAA calling them thieves. When the Labels realize that the RIAA is a liability, they will reign them in. Until then, the extortion, bribery of public officials, violation of privacy rights, unlawful hacking of computer networks, unlawful placement of malware/spyware on private individual's systems, and racketeering continues unabated.
Last edited by WeezulDK on 11 Dec 2007 - 19:17
Why not?
To a degree, you'd expect an industry association to be smart enough to distance itself from "frothing dog" members. It seems instead, they put them in charge of policy. As a result, they deserve some attention for not appropriately minding their own ranks.
LOL, of course this will only bring more piracy for sure !!!
Of course, maybe they're not even that smart in a back-ass-ward method to drive progress, and are simply retards.
"Copying CDs
If you've bought a CD in a shop, you can make a copy for your own personal use and you will not be breaking the law. You can also lend the CD that you bought to your friends if they want to listen to it.
However, it is illegal to make copies of CDs and give them to your friends or to sell pirate copies of CDs for a profit."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/Cr...ime/DG_10027978
Dunno about you, but I've yet to have a police officer come into my house and inspect my computer for rips.
Dunno about you, but I've yet to have a police officer come into my house and inspect my computer for rips.
I pray to God that day never happens.
Yes, I know this is in the UK, but I'll post it anyways:
The action against the Kwik-Fit Group has been brought by the Performing Rights Society which collects royalties for songwriters and performers.
At a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh a judge refused to dismiss the £200,000 damages claim.
Kwik-Fit wanted the case brought against it thrown out.
Lord Emslie ruled that the action can go ahead with evidence being heard.
The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.
More of the story in the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/7029892.stm
"my cd....my money...i'll do whatever i feel like with it"
+1
Btw: the source is Arstechnica.com
Ripping Format: MP3
Ripping: 0%....25%.....50%.....75%....100%
Ripping Complete!
Criminal, no.
Non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings is *NOT* stealing, it's *NOT*, copyright infringement, and it's PERFECTLY LEGAL. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.
The B***H needs to go back and read the LAW and stop spouting her B.S.
its my property, i own that CD, therefore I own what I do to it... If i want to copy, destory or give it to my friends, I will...
they should be happy that I actually paid to buy the CD in the first place. Maybe if they promoted that, rather than discouraging people, they might sort themselves out.
bunch of greedy f***s
I buy CD's, as soon as I get the CD home I rip it and put the CD away for safe keeping. I own some CD's that have never been played as music. I play all my music on my PC and iPod. If they are going to pull this sh** then what is the point of me paying for the CD in the first place. I should just download it from P2P instead of giving them my $30 for a European import.
I try to support the artists I like by actually buying the CD's, then the RAIA comes along and tries to screw us all over. They really need to change their tactic.
You can find that here or here or here lol. Riaa does not care about anyone but themselves.
???
But you already HAD the song.
Now their thinking is you pay for the cd not the music on it. So you own the cd and not the music. If that were the case, then shouldn't we pay like 50 cents that cd's cost?
Besides who the hell uses a walkman these days, hell most people I know don't even use cd's in their car, just use their iPod with an iTrip or something. Saying we are limited to only using the cd is bull****, cd's wear, cd's scratch, the format is crappy and dated, digital versions will last forever (if u don't delete it) cd's won't.
Hopefully the americans will get their **** together once someone new is in control because this is **** getting ridiculous, and thank god we don't have their bull**** in Canada.
Every song on those device are "illegal" copie of songs on your own CD or that you downloaded (legaly) from a services like iTMS. The only device that could be legal is the iPhone, since you can buy and download music directly on the iPhone. It's not the same at home, while using iTune, the song is downloaded to your hard drive first and then copied on your iPod (or other device).....
It's simply crazy.... SUE! SUE THEM ALL!
The RIAA is simply bullies. Harvard has the right idea by standing up to them and not letting them have control.
Also, when will musicians learn, the RIAA is not needed anymore on so many different levels.
1. Having a medium of CDs is completely useless. When MP3 players were fairly new to the market, I bought one. The first thing I did when I bought a CD was rip it.
2. RIAA got an artist name out there and they were a middleman to distribute their music. Know with the Internet, you only need to know the artist website and download their music from their site. This technique will eliminate the need for physical music stores and the RIAA. New artist can promote themselves on Internet radio stations or through other big artists. Similar to what R&B/Rap artists do, they collaborate with big musicians to make a name for themselves. Radio stations will pick it up because it features a big artist name.
If only musicians can just be as bold as Trent Reznor, Saul Williams, and Radio Head, we can eliminate the RIAA in time.
I am so glad I don't buy CDs (take that for whatever it means to you).
There is no way the RIAA can prove that you ripped it. You can always says you downloaded from a DRM free online store. And if there is some sort of tag on the song for the source you can always say well I re tagged everything last time I checked that was legal
I've been a proponent of two ways to resolve the entire filesharing issue: the first would be to enact laws that prohibit any hardware or software that can produce a digital copy of the music contained on a CD with a sample rate & frequency higher than 128kbps / 44.1 kHz.
The second idea: Use a high-quality cassette deck to make an analog recording of the music on the CD and then convert the analog signal into digital. Since there is no digital information copied to the MP3 file, you've circumvented the whole RIAA position.
They can't even compare this to "stealing". If I bought and legally own the product already, when I make a copy of it for personal use, as long as I don't distribute or make profit out of it, how can that constitute "stealing"?
Things like this crap are the very reason why warez still exists today. People are sick of it.
Last edited by Tikitiki on 12 Dec 2007 - 00:36
we might become like the US, or we will be free 4ever.
Funny if you purchased a CD and you own the "license" so if something happens to your CD that it is unplayable how come your license does not give you the right to get a free version due to malfunction?
Canada's law is fine the way it is. It is just a minority of people who download stuff do not end up buying it. Downloading for PRIVATE viewing is legal but not file sharing (uploading).
People have been copying music since cassette tapes came out (and possibly before). Why didn't the music industry do something about it 30+ years ago?
People have been copying music since cassette tapes came out (and possibly before). Why didn't the music industry do something about it 30+ years ago?
Piracy sky rocketed when file sharing networks became accessible to the masses.
The RIAA is being very bold here. According to the RIAA, what Microsoft's and Apple's media players allow the users to do is illegal. If courts side with the RIAA with this, will CD ripping be removed from our favorite media players?
I'd love to see the RIAA take on ol' Bill.
If that's not sarcasm there's something wrong with you.
If that's not sarcasm there's something wrong with you.
Dude. That cut and paste copy of my post was unauthorized. I suggest you report yourself to the local authorities for grand theft and not make matters worse.
stupid riaa ... since when are WE people lead by morons ... come on guys ... lets make a stand ... THEY cannot through 4bilion people in jail .. or pay some 10 gajilion dollars (or maybe euros cause it is worth more) because of one lousy song ... pfffffff (i'm off drinking some pirated beer and melt some silicone so i can make my wife's boobs bigger ... BIGGER i say ... if u do look at them u will see that damn I ran song so buzz off man ...
The Bose® 3·2·1 GSX DVD home entertainment system is a complete—and easy—way to enjoy music and movies with less equipment. Two Gemstone speaker arrays and a hideaway Acoustimass module thrill you with theater-like sound approaching that of traditional five-speaker systems. But here's the difference: There are no wires running to the back of your room. And you can cut back on CD clutter by digitally storing up to 200 hours of your favorite music in the versatile media center. An easy-to-use universal remote control provides one-touch access to your stored music and manages most entertainment devices attached to your system.
Home theater systems made simple
The thrill of a home theater experience. The simplicity of fewer speakers and wires. This union of ideals is realized with the 3·2·1 GSX DVD system. Two compact Gemstone speaker arrays flank your television, but produce realistic effects you might expect from rear speakers. A hideaway Acoustimass module delivers emphatic low notes, while keeping a low profile in a corner, or even out of sight.
It all works in concert with proprietary TrueSpace® digital processing circuitry to produce pure Bose sound that convincingly sweeps across your room. But with no rear or center speakers, and no wiring to the back of your room.
Music made easy with a versatile home entertainment system
If you like less equipment and less clutter, you’ll love our approach to your treasured, but unwieldy, CD collection. The 3·2·1 GSX system digitally stores and organizes up to 200 hours of music. The uMusic® intelligent playback system actually listens to your musical choices and learns your preferences, then makes selections based on what you like. No more searching for CDs or deciding which tracks to listen to. Whatever your mood, the uMusic system delivers just the songs you want to hear.
An elegant home for your media
The premium media center plays today's most popular audio and video content, along with your digitally stored CDs. It includes a progressive scan DVD/CD player, AM/FM tuner and inputs for three additional sources. And its signature design serves as a nice complement to most plasma/LCD televisions.
The 3·2·1 GSX system will also liven up classic movies and TV programs recorded before surround sound. The key is proprietary Videostage® 5 decoding circuitry, which transforms oldies into real goodies with vibrant, room-filling sound.
Even my Bose GSX system allows un-authorized copying of my CD collection.
The only thing the RIAA can rely on is the fear they try to spread with **** like that.
The only reason I buy CDs anymore is so I can rip them to my computer, because quite frankly, the quality offered by online (legal) services is pathetic.
While we're changing one crime into another, why don't we just declare larceny to be murder, extortion to be treason, and jaywalking to be sex with a minor?
I hate how they get away with declaring that one minor crime is another more serious one.
This is why more bands are going independent. To have complete control of their creations and get what they deserve.
Why are you posting here?
For it seems that after posting here, most people will STILL go out and buy cds.
The ONLY way to stop these guys is to hit them where it hurts, their pockets! Do you think anyone in the RIAA cares about people posting in a forum? But I am sure if a thousand people decided not to buy any music for a few months, or even if a million people decided not to buy and cds for a month or two,
Could you guys explain something to me?
Why are you posting here?
For it seems that after posting here, most people will STILL go out and buy cds.
The ONLY way to stop these guys is to hit them where it hurts, their pockets! Do you think anyone in the RIAA cares about people posting in a forum? But I am sure if a thousand people decided not to buy any music for a few months, or even if a million people decided not to buy and cds for a month or two,
I did my part
Edit: I had to cross out what you said because I didn't get your authorization to quote and copy it for my personal amusement:
Why are you posting here?
For it seems that after posting here, most people will STILL go out and buy cds.
The ONLY way to stop these guys is to hit them where it hurts, their pockets! Do you think anyone in the RIAA cares about people posting in a forum? But I am sure if a thousand people decided not to buy any music for a few months, or even if a million people decided not to buy and cds for a month or two, we will see the results of this consumer boycott.
This is just my opinion, but most music these days is utter bull****. So why do we need to buy this music? The most effective solution to this would be to boycott ALL cds that have the RIAA symbol...
Support the independant artists and downloads, but boycott anything to do with the RIAA.
If enough people give the RIAA the finger, they may break from their archaic business model...
If I rip a cd I am stealing from myself. So if I did'nt press any charges against myself why should I be tried in court for it?
**** I should sue them for making me listen to crappy artists.
After all, I'm already tried and convicted as a a thief according to the RIAA, so I may as well actually DO the crime I'm pre-convicted of.
This is getting quite tiresome.
I don't think piracy is really the problem as such... I feel as though the RIAA are playing on a small problem to create a new age business model, increasing the revenue of the record companies associated with it. What they are clearly attempting to do here is revoke fair use, forcing copyright law to become more strict. By doing this, they force people to buy multiple copies of one song. As it stands this is a grey area, and it feels as though over the past few years, they have been using these court cases to slowly alter both public opinion and the law with regards to the sale and use of media, bending everything to their favour. Sad fact is, I can forsee this all getting a lot worse.
Whilst I don't agree with piracy, I also don't agree with the removal of "fair use". They are walking down a path which will irritate a lot of music and film fans. We need some people with very deep pockets to stand up to these guys and speak for the majority who are tired of being bullied and coerced.
I don't think piracy is really the problem as such... I feel as though the RIAA are playing on a small problem to create a new age business model, increasing the revenue of the record companies associated with it.
Piracy is not the issue. GREED is. The RIAA want complete control of artist and people wonder why a lot of new music out there is generic and just su*ks. The RIAA fear piracy because they know they are not needed anymore.
Artists, or should I say good artists make their money from concerts. These artists give a damn about their fans and tour. Realistically an artist can then charge nothing or next to nothing for their music if they would go independent and just tour as usual. They want be hurting, fans get what they want and RIAA will be eliminated.
Too bad. That is legal. Deal with it.
'"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song'" said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'"
Looks like someone should have researched the law before letting their mouth open up and demonstrate their unbelievable stupidity. In the "old" days I recall quite clearly, copyright warnings that said you couldn't make any illegal copies except your own for backup/archival purposes. It is perfectly legal to back up your own media if it's for your own use and not for distribution on any scale (that means lending or P2P). I back up ALL my media and play the copies so it they get scratched up or lost I can burn another one. Think how this applies to families with children. Do you really think DVDs can withstand kids? Sooner or later discs get scratched, smudged, lost, or broken. You've already paid for a license to play the movie for home use so there's no reason you should have to go out and buy it again. That's why you play a COPY of the movie you already own.
I pirate nothing. I am happy to support artists and movies that I like. However, I have no tolerance for bully tactics or organizations that have forgotten what my rights are as a PAYING CUSTOMER.
Piracy is a terrible crime.
Organizations taking away our rights is worse.
I'm glad we don't have to deal with this in Canada.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.