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

[ducklite]

We're talking copyright law, and software manufacturers have stated very clearly in writing on their software packages that it's perfectly acceptable to make a back up copy of any software you buy. Isn't that in essence what's being done with music?

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Actually this move by the RIAA is brilliant. One of the big issues that artists have is that the Record Companies make a higher percentage of profit from music sold digitally then sold on CD's. There was a big protest a few years back. Everyone is going to go "OK the heck with them I'll just buy it from Itunes". The record company has to pay less to the artist and they make more money!

 

[ducklite]

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?

The label gets paid first. And in all honesty, probably half the CD's sold are sold for under $10. On average a major label artist will earn about $1 on each CD they sell. So if they sell 100,000 CD's, and there are five guys in a band, each guy gets $20,000. Not a lot of cash when you think about it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The label gets paid first. And in all honesty, probably half the CD's sold are sold for under $10. On average a major label artist will earn about $1 on each CD they sell. So if they sell 100,000 CD's, and there are five guys in a band, each guy gets $20,000. Not a lot of cash when you think about it.

That's what I thought. If it was about artists getting more money, it would be one thing, but this is about the corporation.

 

[ducklite]

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.

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

The RIAA doesn't own the copyrights. Generally speaking those rights are retained by either an artist or publishing company (often owned by the artist) and even the label only has a limited specific use of the protected work in most cases.

ETA: The RIAA exists to ensure that record labels collect every penny they can. They work along with BMI and ASCAP, although the latter work more for the artist and the RIAA is more for the corporate label.

 

[bicker]

We're talking copyright law, and software manufacturers have stated very clearly in writing on their software packages that it's perfectly acceptable to make a back up copy of any software you buy. Isn't that in essence what's being done with music?

There is a specific exception in the Copyright Act for software, allowing purchasers to make one backup copy. That exception very explicitly applies ONLY to software.

 

[bicker]

The RIAA doesn't own the copyrights.

They are suing on behalf of copyright holders.

 

[ducklite]

They are suing on behalf of copyright holders.

Not exactly in most cases. They are suing on behalf of the labels for label royalties.

The royalty collecting agencies ASCAP and BMI would be the ones suing for performers royalties and mechanicals. In 99% of cases these days, labels do not own copyrights. Those copyrights are owned by publishing companies which are generally not owned by labels but rather owned by the musicians themselves, or as stand-alone organizations.

 

[MyGoofy26]

I didn't read the article posted, but the one I read the other day sounded like it's something extra the RIAA wants to be able to throw in when they bust someone for sharing. Not that they want to go door to door, raiding homes. But that when they bust someone for peer to peer file sharing, they can hit them not only with the penalties for each song uploaded, but nail them a second time for ripping the file in the first place. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they want to make these handful of not as high profile as they hoped cases a little more dramatic. They want to set the precedent in case law so that the next time when the fines are doubled, maybe we'll all shake a little more in our boots. They went after a relative few sharers in hopes of scaring the public at large back into the record stores, and those cases just don't get enough media attention to do what they had hoped.


But this also completely contradicts what the labels were doing just a few years ago. Not too long ago when they were playing with various forms of copy protection on CDs to limit sharing, many (if not all) of the labels were offering patches on their sites so that consumers COULD rip audio for their own use. I remember one CD I couldn't even PLAY on a computer until the patch was released shortly after. I wonder how that will effect the court's ruling, if the labels themselves set the precedent to not only condone, but create ways to copy for personal use.

 

[bicker]

Not exactly in most cases. They are suing on behalf of the labels for label royalties.

The royalty collecting agencies ASCAP and BMI would be the ones suing for performers royalties and mechanicals. In 99% of cases these days, labels do not own copyrights. Those copyrights are owned by publishing companies which are generally not owned by labels but rather owned by the musicians themselves, or as stand-alone organizations.

So now that we've gotten into this minutia, could you please let us know what the significance of this tangent is?

 

[bicker]

I didn't read the article posted, but the one I read the other day sounded like it's something extra the RIAA wants to be able to throw in when they bust someone for sharing. Not that they want to go door to door, raiding homes. But that when they bust someone for peer to peer file sharing, they can hit them not only with the penalties for each song uploaded, but nail them a second time for ripping the file in the first place.

Absolutely. It's just like seat-belt laws.

 

[chisnpeke]

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.

I never realized this. I'll have to look closer next time I buy a CD.

 

[ducklite]

So now that we've gotten into this minutia, could you please let us know what the significance of this tangent is?

Just making a correction to your comment that "They are suing on behalf of copyright holders," which is not the case. It's actually not minutia at all.

 

[bicker]

I still don't understand the significance. Are you saying that they don't have standing to be suing because of this indirection you outlined? (They do, of course.)

 

[ducklite]

I never realized this. I'll have to look closer next time I buy a CD.

I was referring to the promotional CD's that I get, and saying that the labels could possibly begin using a similar system to track file sharing violations.

The CD you buy has copyright information that states on the outside "Warning: All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." or "FBI Anti- Priacy Warning: Unauthorized copying is punishable under federal law." or other such working.

 

[ducklite]

I still don't understand the significance. Are you saying that they don't have standing to be suing because of this indirection you outlined? (They do, of course.)

The significance is that you are implying that the RIAA is directly representing copyright holders. They actually represent the labels who must pay the copyright holders (publishing companies) and musicians royalties and mechanicals respectively through ASCAP or BMI. It is the latter who have the right to sue individually on behalf of musicians and copyright holders (publishing companies). Just trying to make that point clear. It might seem minute to you, but to the hundreds of thousands of musicians affected by this type of claim, it's most certainly not. This type of action by the RIAA will increase the revenues of corporations, but a very minimal amount of money will actually filter down to the individual musician.

 

[boomhauer]

1.How will they know if it has been transferred to your home PC?

2.I've always suspected that it was just a matter of time until they did SOMETHING to stop this. Seems to easy to just copy the CD and give it to a friend.

3.This will bite the RIAA right in the butt. If they make transfering CD's to MP3's illegal, even LESS people will purchase CD's. This would be their dumbest move yet.

 

[bicker]

The significance is that you are implying that the RIAA is directly representing copyright holders.

Well, no, not really. The only relevant assertion I intend is that they have standing to sue. Is that an acceptable amendment?

 

[mirthmaiden]

Looks like I need to get my pom poms out of storage.

 

[MosMom]

It seems the argument made by RIAA only applies to people making copies of these CD's and then putting them in a shared file. If you use a service like Limewire and have these in your shared file you have broken copyright laws. This is not part of "fair use" laws.

For you to copy your CD onto your iPod is not what they have a problem with according to court transcription.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted sound recordings on his computer... Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiff's recordings into the compressed ".mp3" format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."

Here they are acknowledging that simply copying a CD for personal use is not breaking fair use authorization.

I can partake in the glorious contrivance known as Google as well.