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

[ducklite]

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

The RIAA has a standing to sue on behalf of record labels for royalties denied to labels by the unlawful actions of others, I would agree with that.

As I said earlier, I think that it will be difficult if not impossible to reasonably prove a music buyer who put that purchased music on a conveying device with no intent to sell, trade, or give away to others has caused any financial or unspecific damages intentionally or otherwise to the RIAA and the labels it represents, in civil court.

 

[reeeoga]

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.

If they stop producing physical CD's and switch to all digital downloads, wouldn't their profit margin go up? They don't have to produce a physical product, just the electronic one which the distribution for is being handled by 3rd party vendors. More profit for less work. Or to quote a duck "work smarter, not harder!"

 

[Maleficent13]

It has become relatively obvious to me that the irregularities of this hypothetical argument make it somewhat difficult for the median consumer to grasp the blatantly apparent intentions of the RIAA. As such, it would behoove said consumer to cease his/her/its procurement of music via the method of compact discs, and in its stead begin to obtain his/her/its media directly from internet web music providers, thus eliminating the middle man and causing the downfall of the Paleolithic purveyors.

 

[ducklite]

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.

Could you post the link? I'd be interested in reading that. Thanks!

(And that seems to make sense to me--much more than the RIAA coming after people who rip a CD to their music files on their laptop so they don't have to carry the disc around.)

 

[ducklite]

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.

Could you post the link? I'd be interested in reading that. Thanks!

(And that seems to make sense to me--much more than the RIAA coming after people who rip a CD to their music files on their laptop so they don't have to carry the disc around.)

 

[boomhauer]

If they stop producing physical CD's and switch to all digital downloads, wouldn't their profit margin go up? They don't have to produce a physical product, just the electronic one which the distribution for is being handled by 3rd party vendors. More profit for less work. Or to quote a duck "work smarter, not harder!"

Yes and no. If they go that route, people will just burn the music onto a CD and copy it. Then, the RIAA would have to put some sort of copyrights on blank CDR's. Good luck to them on that.

As it is, they tried (unsuccessfully) to put a music tax on CDR's, but the government turned them down cold on that one.

 

[Beth76]

It has become relatively obvious to me that the irregularities of this hypothetical argument make it somewhat difficult for the median consumer to grasp the blatantly apparent intentions of the RIAA. As such, it would behoove said consumer to cease his/her/its procurement of music via the method of compact discs, and in its stead begin to obtain his/her/its media directly from internet web music providers, thus eliminating the middle man and causing the downfall of the Paleolithic purveyors.

Bicker? Are you posting under a new name now?

 

[ducklite]

If they stop producing physical CD's and switch to all digital downloads, wouldn't their profit margin go up? They don't have to produce a physical product, just the electronic one which the distribution for is being handled by 3rd party vendors. More profit for less work. Or to quote a duck "work smarter, not harder!"

I prefer the "have it in my hand, love to read the liner notes, don't have to worry about catastrophic loss of all data" CD in a jewel case, even if it costs more.

I probably have a different view on music as well. I don't expect to have every song on a CD be a single. Sometimes the best songs are the hidden gems that will never be a single because some clown at a label decides so. I like supporting the musicians by purchasing the entire CD, not cherry picking one or two songs. JMHO, and I can see why people have a different one.

 

[mirthmaiden]

I heart google.

I do not heart the attempted obfuscation of meritless argumentation via the utilization of inflated prose.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

It has become relatively obvious to me that the irregularities of this hypothetical argument make it somewhat difficult for the median consumer to grasp the blatantly apparent intentions of the RIAA. As such, it would behoove said consumer to cease his/her/its procurement of music via the method of compact discs, and in its stead begin to obtain his/her/its media directly from internet web music providers, thus eliminating the middle man and causing the downfall of the Paleolithic purveyors.

Snap out of it, woman!!

 

[cteddiesgirl]

It has become relatively obvious to me that the irregularities of this hypothetical argument make it somewhat difficult for the median consumer to grasp the blatantly apparent intentions of the RIAA. As such, it would behoove said consumer to cease his/her/its procurement of music via the method of compact discs, and in its stead begin to obtain his/her/its media directly from internet web music providers, thus eliminating the middle man and causing the downfall of the Paleolithic purveyors.

Unfortunately, the quality of downloaded music sucks.
That being said, the last physical cd I bought was in October. Before that, I don't know when it was. I download everything.
Personally, I'd much rather have actual cd quality, but after spending so much money on cd's in the past (over 1100 cd's), I can no longer afford it.

I prefer the "have it in my hand, love to read the liner notes, don't have to worry about catastrophic loss of all data" CD in a jewel case, even if it costs more.

I probably have a different view on music as well. I don't expect to have every song on a CD be a single. Sometimes the best songs are the hidden gems that will never be a single because some clown at a label decides so. I like supporting the musicians by purchasing the entire CD, not cherry picking one or two songs. JMHO, and I can see why people have a different one.

I would love to support the artists. But as said, the artists themselves get a very small percentage of the profits. The managers, the labels and the copyright holders get all the money. You know. Those that don't actually do any work.

 

[beachblanket]

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.

The watermarking is digitial code. If someone records a copy of the music onto a cassette tape via the analog line output of whatever is playing the disc, the watermarking doesn't get transferred (it isn't on the taped analog copy). The latter tape can then be played back into a PC and digitized, resulting in a new file sans any watermarking. And if this is done using high quality tape equipment (ergo, metal tape on a good deck such as a Nakamichi) the process results in no discernible degredation in sound quality.

BTW, this flaw in watermarking isn't new and has been widely documented. If anyone is skeptical, just google it.

 

[bicker]

I would love to support the artists. But as said, the artists themselves get a very small percentage of the profits. The managers, the labels and the copyright holders get all the money. You know. Those that don't actually do any work.

Of course they do work. They don't do work you care about, but they do work. And in our society, their work is perhaps valued more than that of most (though not all) of the artists. Your personal values may not be in line with society's-as-a-whole (I'm sure mine aren't either), but that doesn't change the reality. Give the mangers, producers, and label exec's a break: Lots of us would actually love to have their job, I'm sure, but the fact that they have their jobs -- the fact that society is the way it is isn't a justification for anything, and doesn't help clarify this issue.

 

[ducklite]

I would love to support the artists. But as said, the artists themselves get a very small percentage of the profits. The managers, the labels and the copyright holders get all the money. You know. Those that don't actually do any work.

Look at it this way. Regardless of who gets the money, if the record doesn't sell enough to satisfy the label, the artist will get dropped. So even though the artist will make $.20 if you download two songs and $1 if you buy the CD, the label will make more on the CD allowing them to continue to sign new bands and keep the band in question in their roster. It's a double edged sword.

I'm not saying it's fair, but it's the way the business works. Without a label it's difficult for a band to get a tour--and that's where they make their money--much of it on tour merchandise which is something the labels can't get their grubby fingers on. (Usually.)

 

[mickeyfan2]

I heart google.

I do not heart the attempted obfuscation of meritless argumentation via the utilization of inflated prose.

 

[ducklite]

The watermarking is digitial code. If someone records a copy of the music onto a cassette tape via the analog line output of whatever is playing the disc, the watermarking doesn't get transferred (it isn't on the taped analog copy). The latter tape can then be played back into a PC and digitized, resulting in a new file sans any watermarking. And if this is done using high quality tape equipment (ergo, metal tape on a good deck such as a Nakamichi) the process results in no discernible degredation in sound quality.

BTW, this flaw in watermarking isn't new and has been widely documented. If anyone is skeptical, just google it.

I believe you, although I doubt the average Joe colelge student or soccer mom is going to go through the trouble or buy the equipment to do this.

 

[reeeoga]

Yes and no. If they go that route, people will just burn the music onto a CD and copy it. Then, the RIAA would have to put some sort of copyrights on blank CDR's. Good luck to them on that.

As it is, they tried (unsuccessfully) to put a music tax on CDR's, but the government turned them down cold on that one.

So I'm right and I'm Wrong!?! Cool and BOO!

 

[ducklite]

Of course they do work. They don't do work you care about, but they do work. And in our society, their work is perhaps valued more than that of most (though not all) of the artists. Your personal values may not be in line with society's-as-a-whole (I'm sure mine aren't either), but that doesn't change the reality. Give the mangers, producers, and label exec's a break: Lots of us would actually love to have their job, I'm sure, but the fact that they have their jobs -- the fact that society is the way it is isn't a justification for anything, and doesn't help clarify this issue.

Eh. I wouldn't want most of those jobs for any amount of money. (And I'll be the first to admit I don't have the ear to be a producer.)

I do care about the work that people in the industry do--it's an industry I've been employed by in one way or another for going on 30 years.

You can give any good looking schlump with a shred of talent a guitar and have songs written for him, teach hom how to move, and make him insto a superstar. But you can't teach someone how to write a good song or become technically astute at their instrument. That's talent in either case, and you've got it or you don't. That's both sides of the coin--the true musical talent who can become superstars on thier own merits, and the true business talent who can create superstars out of schlumps.

 

[just another guy]

Just another more and more clear case of Big Brother coming.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I didn't read the whole thread, but am I the only one who doesn't care if it is illegal or not and is just going to keep doing it?

I've also made copies of my CDs for friends.

I'm such a rebel.