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

[minnieandmickeymouse]

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.

If I still bought CD's I would keep doing it!

 

["Got Disney"]

I get soooo tired of them complaining...if you ask me they are ripping us off at $1.00 a song
If they reduce it to 45-50 cents than everyone would buy and not look for other alternatives.

Don't think that DL from your own CD is what they are talking about(could be wrong)....there is no way for them to find that out unless you DL as share.

 

[RitaZ.]

next they are going to start suing people for the illegal humming of copyrighted songs while in the shower.

 

[bicker]

(And I'll be the first to admit I don't have the ear to be a producer.)

Indeed, pointing out some of the "work" that cteddiesgirl discounted earlier.

 

[bluesaturn]

I heart google.

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

 

[Papa Deuce]

I think it has been a long while since I actually purchased a CD. I hate buying a whole CD just for a couple of songs.

The cost of manufacturing CD's has come way down but that has never been passed on to the consumer. The prices are still the same.

Well........ depends on how you look at it. For sure they can probably make a whole CD with packaging for under a buck now.... most CDs today are $10 - $15, especially in the first week of sales.... But when CDs came out, many were much closer to $20 than $10.....

Remember, the artists get anywhere from about a buck at the low end, to $6 at the high end for themselves. Michael Jackson used to make about $5.50 per CD in his prime.

 

[Papa Deuce]

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.

Because it ISN'T. The RIAA would just like you to THINK it is. Think about it. They are grasping at straws. This is a last chance push before they die. If it was illegal, why were they not arguing this vocally YEARS ago?

 

[enyaj40]

i like to make backup copies of purchased cds because i've had two cd holders with about 20 cds each stolen from my car at two separate points

now i carry the copies in my car and keep originals at home

i want an ipod for portability and want to be able to put all my music in it that i have legally purchased no matter what form it was purchased in

:::hears english teacher telling me not to end a sentence with preposition:::

:::wonders if preposition is the right word:::

:::ends rabbit trail:::

ok...another trend i see, with which i disagree, is folks buying music either full price or at the 'used' shops that have popped up all over the place, recording it for themselves, and selling it back to the shops

jmo, btw

not casting dark clouds on anyone's character as i firmly believe we all do, at one time or another, something that breaks a law somewhere

:::eases foot off gas pedal:::

 

[Shutterbug]

ok...another trend i see, with which i disagree, is folks buying music either full price or at the 'used' shops that have popped up all over the place, recording it for themselves, and selling it back to the shops

Also how about the library? Theres no cost at all associated with borrow a CD from the library. I know my local library has a good sized CD collection.
Even though you can have the CD up to two weeks, I wonder how many are being returned within a couple days.

 

[agnes!]

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.

Does ASCAP or BMI have legal standing (maybe even better legal standing?) to do any of the legal stuff that the RIAA is pulling? I haven't heard of other industry groups or any performing/recording artists' unions joining in on the side of the RIAA.

The actual content creators have almost always gotten screwed by the labels, it's a tradition dating back to 78s & 45s.

agnes!

 

[beachblanket]

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.

I agree with you regarding the soccer moms. But as for the college crowd, a quick visit to eBay will show there's a very, very hot market in used high end cassette decks (Nakamichis, Sonys, Technics ect.) as well as metal tape. Trust me, they are not just being purchased by collectors or fanatical analog audiophiles...

 

[ckay87]

Also how about the library? Theres no cost at all associated with borrow a CD from the library. I know my local library has a good sized CD collection. Even though you can have the CD up to two weeks, I wonder how many are being returned within a couple days.

So does mine. And now I have a good sized CD collection as well.

Does anyone else think that if they really really wanted to stop the copying/ripping/synching of CDs, they could simply put technology in place to prevent it?

Windows Media Player, for example....it's right there, distributed with most PCs, I think. Other than playing media, what are the primary functions of this software? Rip, synch, and burn. What can you legally rip, synch, and burn if not your music? And if that is so illegal, why is Microsoft readily distributing the technology to do so? Wouldn't the RIAA et al put an end to that first? Or why wouldn't they code (or whatever) the CDs so they couldn't be copied?

This is all just scare tactics and I won't sweat it one bit. Concert ticket prices are going through the roof, and I sometimes pay them, supposedly because of this digitalization of music. Fine...then the artists go out there and work like the rest of us and use their recorded music as advertising for their very expensive shows.

Wow...that was a crazy, poorly-written tangent, huh?

 

[MyGoofy26]

I agree with you regarding the soccer moms. But as for the college crowd, a quick visit to eBay will show there's a very, very hot market in used high end cassette decks (Nakamichis, Sonys, Technics ect.) as well as metal tape. Trust me, they are not just being purchased by collectors...

And if they're trying to get around the safeguards on CDs or digital formats, all it takes is a decent audio program (most can be had illegally downloaded as well, LOL) where they can copy in real time. It's ridiculously easy to do. Open the program and set yor levels (or use default to make it even easier), play a track and click record when it starts and stop when it ends. And voila! A brand new, completely independent version of the original sans coding. Also good with streaming audio online - pretty much any sound that comes through your computer speakers you can have with very little effort.

 

[agnes!]

So does mine. And now I have a good sized CD collection as well.

Does anyone else think that if they really really wanted to stop the copying/ripping/synching of CDs, they could simply put technology in place to prevent it?

Windows Media Player, for example....it's right there, distributed with most PCs, I think. Other than playing media, what are the primary functions of this software? Rip, synch, and burn. What can you legally rip, synch, and burn if not your music? And if that is so illegal, why is Microsoft readily distributing the technology to do so? Wouldn't the RIAA et al put an end to that first? Or why wouldn't they code (or whatever) the CDs so they couldn't be copied?...

Yeah... Hahahahahahaha, I would so like to see the RIAA just *try* to take on Bill Gates ! They would have their whatever/s handed back to them on a silver platter.

agnes!

 

[ducklite]

Does ASCAP or BMI have legal standing (maybe even better legal standing?) to do any of the legal stuff that the RIAA is pulling? I haven't heard of other industry groups or any performing/recording artists' unions joining in on the side of the RIAA.

The actual content creators have almost always gotten screwed by the labels, it's a tradition dating back to 78s & 45s.

agnes!

ASCAP and BMI can sue on behalf of the copyright/mechanical owners they represent, and do so when appropriate. They went after a lot of smaller establishments a few years ago that had jukeboxes and CD players and such and weren't paying the annual licensing fee to those agencies to cover the public broadcast of music in those establishments. A lot of small bars, hair salons, etc. got sued. The sad thing is that the annual licensing fee is really pretty minimal and based on the size of the business, and just paying it would have been cheaper for those businesses--and every one of them lost in court. BMI/ASCAP did try to handle things civilly first by sending letters, giving people the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't know they were required to buy the license.

When they sue, they generally don't make it into a media circus event like RIAA does.

 

[bicker]

The actual content creators have almost always gotten screwed by the labels, it's a tradition dating back to 78s & 45s.

You mean the 780s and 450s, perhaps. Some medieval literary and artistic works are actually credited to those who commissioned them, rather than the original author, who's identity may be unknowable. And that's not just a matter of who gets the profit; at least these days, artists are much more likely to at least get authorship credit for their own work, if not all the incremental profits, above and beyond their initial salary, that come in after publication and distribution.

This scenario we've been discussing has been going on for centuries, perhaps millennia. Artists have always envied the power of their benefactors and employers, but that doesn't mean that those employers are due any less than what they were promised by the artists, i.e., the profit from the works as if the employers created them themselves. So when any entity with standing sues for their due, they are suing with the same standing and deserving the same consideration as the original artist: If this system collapses, then benefactors and employers will no longer be willing to pay artists what they're paying them now.

 

[ducklite]

You mean the 780s and 450s, perhaps. Some medieval literary and artistic works are actually credited to those who commissioned them, rather than the original author, who's identity may be unknowable. And that's not just a matter of who gets the profit; at least these days, artists are much more likely to at least get authorship credit for their own work, if not all the incremental profits, above and beyond their initial salary, that come in after publication and distribution.

This scenario we've been discussing has been going on for centuries, perhaps millennia. Artists have always envied the power of their benefactors and employers, but that doesn't mean that those employers are due any less than what they were promised by the artists, i.e., the profit from the works as if the employers created them themselves. So when any entity with standing sues for their due, they are suing with the same standing and deserving the same consideration as the original artist: If this system collapses, then benefactors and employers will no longer be willing to pay artists what they're paying them now.

Not neccesarily. Many artists are now going the indie route and self-releasing. With distribution outlets such as CD Baby now available, it's become easier and easier to DIY. If a band has good management or a good music attorney (or both) and an effective publicist and street team, they can make a lot more money and never have to deal with a label. ASCAP/BMI will protect their copyrights and make sure they get their royalties and mechanicals. Sevendust and Dilana are two examples of bands that have gone this route with success, and completely cut a label out of the picture.

The RIAA as a representative of the labels is one of the many things driving many bands to either DIY or go with smaller indie labels.

 

[bicker]

True, so things are changing steadily. The point though is that folks shouldn't expect a system that has evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years to suddenly completely reverse itself. It could happen, but it hasn't, and most likely won't.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Indeed, pointing out some of the "work" that cteddiesgirl discounted earlier.

And today, most of the producers really don't have ears to produce well. Many of the artists sound like crap even on the recording.

 

[ducklite]

And today, most of the producers really don't have ears to produce well. Many of the artists sound like crap even on the recording.

I totally disagree with this statement. There are some absolutely amazing producers out there, both well established (Mutt Lange, Bob Rock, Toby Wright, Howard Benson) and newcomers or "lesser knowns" (Justin Thomas, Matt Squire, Rob Graves, Larry Baeder).