RIAA now going after people that load their own CD's onto their own computer.

[Fitswimmer]

Actually I believe the RIAA has been distorting the actual copyright laws all along and trying to push them further than the courts actually ruled.
But they are a dinosaur, as technology develops they will become less and less of a force in music. As soon as Artists can find a way to get their music to the public on a large scale without the record industry and still get paid that's what will happen.

isn't that what Radiohead just did with their last album?

 

[MyManGoofy!]

I thought they already lost that battle with cassette tapes - when Walkmen came out, they tried to prevent people from putting their albums on tape and listening to them -- I'm pretty sure the (?Supreme?) Court found that once you bought it, duplication for personal use was perfectly kosher (but making dupes for friends, etc., was not).

I assume the defense lawyers will say this is the exact same issue, but the RIAA will say that technology has made the duplication process instantaneous and therefore it's different. However, I still should think that first generation copies for your own use will remain legal.

It's a dying industry and they're grasping at straws.

Kind of along those lines - was it illegal to record songs off the radio onto a cassette tape? If so - was anyone ever prosecuted? I know plenty of mix tapes came into being this way!

 

[Todd&Copper]

How would they even enforce this? Bust into my home, grab my mp3, and compare it to my CD's for circumstantial evidence that I "illegally" ripped the songs? Give me a break. Enforcement is a logistical nightmare and a complete folly.

 

[ducklite]

isn't that what Radiohead just did with their last album?

Yup, although I could be mistaken, but I think I just saw or read something that they will now be releasing it via more traditional avenues as well.

 

[bicker]

I thought they already lost that battle with cassette tapes - when Walkmen came out, they tried to prevent people from putting their albums on tape and listening to them -- I'm pretty sure the (?Supreme?) Court found that once you bought it, duplication for personal use was perfectly kosher (but making dupes for friends, etc., was not).

That is not the case.

The only relevant case law involved time-shifting; recording something to listen to or watch later. Place-shifting, and especially format-shifting, are not rights granted to purchasers of copyrighted content, whether it be music or movies.

There is also legal decisions that make it clear that doing anything to overcome copy protection is explicitly illegal. The copy protection doesn't even need to be especially effective.

It's a dying industry and they're grasping at straws.

And that might be why they will will some of the court cases that they will file: Because the courts will almost surely find that it is in the public interest to foster American modern music (and movies) by protecting the profit motive necessary to provide resources necessary to keep these industries (industries that incidentally keep tens of thousands of people working) in business.

 

[Kathi OD]

How would they even enforce this? Bust into my home, grab my mp3, and compare it to my CD's for circumstantial evidence that I "illegally" ripped the songs? Give me a break. Enforcement is a logistical nightmare and a complete folly.

This is what I'm also thinking? How do they determine exactly who has "illegally" copied a CD onto a computer for personal use? I doubt they can really enforce this crazy interpretation of the copyright laws. The only ones who are going to win here are the attorneys.

 

[mmcguire]

This is insane! I've ripped a lot of my CD collection to my PC/iPod. Many of my old CDs are out of print, so I couldn't buy downloads if I wanted to! Before I owned an MP3 player, I often made a copy to listen to so my originals wouldn't get scratched up from being carried around.

I feel like I have a right to protect my purchases by making a personal copy, or put it on my iPod for easy transport so I don't have to lug around hundreds of CDs.

I don't share my CDs with friends, nor have I ever put songs online. The RIAA needs to put their energy toward something productive instead of trying to find new ways to squeeze more money out of something that's already been paid for.

 

[bicker]

How do they determine exactly who has "illegally" copied a CD onto a computer for personal use?

That will be a challenge, but I suspect this will mostly be a crime enforced along with other crimes, which facilitate learning about the illegal copies.

 

[ducklite]

This is what I'm also thinking? How do they determine exactly who has "illegally" copied a CD onto a computer for personal use? I doubt they can really enforce this crazy interpretation of the copyright laws. The only ones who are going to win here are the attorneys.

I get promotional copies of CD's that are digitally watermarked with a code that will identify me should I sell of upload the music. My name is actually printed on the disc along with a serial number, and the label definitely tracks each and every person the CD's are sent to. This would be one way of tracking illegal uploads, but if you never upload or transmit the tunes, I don't see how they would catch you. I think it would also get cost prohibitive and add privacy concerns. The CD's are sealed with a sticker saying that by breaking the seal you agree to the "rules" just like on software, and an 800 number for you to call to arange for free return of the CD if you don't want to comply with the rules.

For the record there is nothing at all written on them that prohibits copying them to an I-Pod or laptop for listening purposes, leading me to believe that the labels don't think that this is a problem, just the RIAA goon squad.

 

[bicker]

I feel like I have a right to protect my purchases by making a personal copy, or put it on my iPod for easy transport so I don't have to lug around hundreds of CDs.

And that's exactly the issue: You don't have the rights you feel you have. Copyright law makes it clear that the copyright holder has all those rights, and they legally can grant you whichever ones they want, with whatever provisos they want, including an expiration date (for that matter). This battle that we're seeing will be between the Copyright Act itself, and folks like you who would like to see the Copyright Act rewritten to favor the reader, listeners and watchers instead of the authors, producers and broadcasters.

If you want some insight into who might win this contest, look at who's running for President. Do any of them support this consumerist perspective? Not even the Democrats are consumerist any longer.

 

[Linus Van Pelt]

It's a dying industry and they're grasping at straws.

Yep. And after this latest news, I sure do hope it dies soon!

 

[Tumbleweed]

I'm a firm believer that people should be paid for their work. But...
is anyone else looking at how much money the recording artists, et al,
are making? Just how much do you need? I think they're getting a
little too greedy!

 

[Linus Van Pelt]

Ha, the RIAA and what army are going to go after the millions of people who copy legally purchased CD's for their own use. Will I now have to pay the RIAA a royalty for everyone within earshot of my speakers when I play a tune? The RIAA had better be careful, they could create a backlash that they'd never recover from.

They won't go after the millions, they'll just go after a selective few, thereby making examples of them for the rest of us to note, and then hope like hell that the people they actually sue will just settle out of court so the defendants can then avoid the legal fees and the plaintiffs won't have to make their case pass muster in front of a judge and jury. Just like they've been doing the past several years with illegal file sharers.

Scum! (I mean, of course, the RIAA.)

 

[mmcguire]

And that's exactly the issue: You don't have the rights you feel you have. Copyright law makes it clear that the copyright holder has all those rights, and they legally can grant you whichever ones they want, with whatever provisos they want, including an expiration date (for that matter). This battle that we're seeing will be between the Copyright Act itself, and folks like you who would like to see the Copyright Act rewritten to favor the reader, listeners and watchers instead of the authors, producers and broadcasters.

So why doesn't the RIAA go after iTunes and all the other software producers (Nero, Toast, etc) that have made it push-button simple for consumers to copy their CDs?

If the copyright laws are so clear on this matter, then why is it that most consumers don't realize that making a copy for their own personal use is a violation of law? If this is the position of the industry, then why haven't they put a warning label on every CD that CLEARLY states that even making a PERSONAL copy is prohibited by law?

The RIAA just twists the interpretation of the law to suit their current revenue initiative.

 

[mmcguire]

And that's exactly the issue: You don't have the rights you feel you have. Copyright law makes it clear that the copyright holder has all those rights, and they legally can grant you whichever ones they want, with whatever provisos they want, including an expiration date (for that matter). This battle that we're seeing will be between the Copyright Act itself, and folks like you who would like to see the Copyright Act rewritten to favor the reader, listeners and watchers instead of the authors, producers and broadcasters.

So why doesn't the RIAA go after iTunes and all the other software producers (Nero, Toast, etc) that have made it push-button simple for consumers to copy their CDs?

If the copyright laws are so clear on this matter, then why is it that most consumers don't realize that making a copy for their own personal use is a violation of law? If this is the position of the industry, then why haven't they put a warning label on every CD that CLEARLY states that even making a PERSONAL copy is prohibited by law?

I am completely in favor of artists, writers, etc. receiving what they're due, but the RIAA is twisting the interpretation of the law to suit their current revenue initiative.

 

[beachblanket]

And that's exactly the issue: You don't have the rights you feel you have. Copyright law makes it clear that the copyright holder has all those rights, and they legally can grant you whichever ones they want, with whatever provisos they want, including an expiration date (for that matter).

Oh, gee, I'm frightened. Yep, the RIAA will get Congress to allow them to randomly raid every home in America looking for cassettes and hard drives.

 

[bicker]

So why doesn't the RIAA go after iTunes and all the other software producers (Nero, Toast, etc) that have made it push-button simple for consumers to copy their CDs?

I'm not familiar what you can and cannot do through iTunes. Do keep in mind what I said before: "the copyright holder has all those rights, and they legally can grant you whichever ones they want, with whatever provisos they want, including an expiration date (for that matter)." So, given iTunes' size and visibility, you can rest assured that whatever they're doing is covered by rights granted to them by the copyright holders.

If the copyright laws are so clear on this matter, then why is it that most consumers don't realize that making a copy for their own personal use is a violation of law?

Why should they be aware of a law that has not been enforced?

 

[Shutterbug]

So why doesn't the RIAA go after iTunes and all the other software producers (Nero, Toast, etc) that have made it push-button simple for consumers to copy their CDs?

Also with Itunes, when it comes to burning CD's of the songs you have purchased through them, you can burn as many CD's as you want of the purchased songs.

So with songs purchased on Itunes:
The ones that are DRM-Free: you can put on as many computers that you want and put them on any portable mp3 device.
The songs that are not DRM-Free you can still burn to as many CD's as you want.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Out of the $13 or $14 that the CD's costs, what percentage of that goes to the artist? Is this really about the artists getting paid or the label getting paid?

 

[ducklite]

I'm a firm believer that people should be paid for their work. But...
is anyone else looking at how much money the recording artists, et al,
are making? Just how much do you need? I think they're getting a
little too greedy!

Not all of them are getting rich. In all honesty, very few are. I know guys in bands on major labels who rely on their wives or girlfriends incomes to support them, or still live with their parents, or work day gigs when they aren't recording or on the road.