OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

[caver1]

This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet had time to update their website. They go into more detail
elsewhere, but here it is from straight from their webpages...

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?

Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music
they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music
of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop
artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well.
We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.

There is also a law that the RIAA is trying to get
passed in every state that if passed then they
will never lose ownership of what you buy. If you
get divorced or die the RIAA has say over what is
done with your music not you. This same law makes
it mandatory for anyone buying or selling used
music to give their thumb prints at time of sale.
No this is not aimed at pirates it is aimed at
your local mom and pop music store to try to stop
that sale. There is more to this law.
This has passed in Florida and 2 other states in
this country.
Whether it is being enforce at this time I don't know.
The RIAA does not want any music to ever pass
into the public domain.
caver1

 

[Stephan Rose]

There is also a law that the RIAA is trying to get passed in every state
that if passed then they will never lose ownership of what you buy. If
you get divorced or die the RIAA has say over what is done with your
music not you. This same law makes it mandatory for anyone buying or
selling used music to give their thumb prints at time of sale. No this
is not aimed at pirates it is aimed at your local mom and pop music
store to try to stop that sale. There is more to this law. This has
passed in Florida and 2 other states in this country.
Whether it is being enforce at this time I don't know.
The RIAA does not want any music to ever pass
into the public domain.
caver1

That bullshit passed in Florida? Well seeing how I'm moving to Florida in
just over a week I'm going to have to test that. No frigging clue what
I'd buy to test it with as I exclusively listen to Japanese music but I
suppose I'll find something...

Though tell ya one thing...

If someone seriously wants my fingerprints to sell me a frigging CD,
they'll have to cut off the finger from my dead body to do so.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Alias]

Uh, the "Gestapo" was a European thing.

Key word: "was".

The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a
willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction. We take a dim view of
thieves.

Riiight. The US has stolen how many natural resources from 3rd world
countries?

Often we shoot them. Sometimes we shoot a pre-thief.

If that were true, all the politicians in the USA would have already
been shot a long time ago.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Though tell ya one thing...

If someone seriously wants my fingerprints to sell me a frigging CD,
they'll have to cut off the finger from my dead body to do so.

Don't give the RIAA any ideas ;-)

Alias

 

[Ray Shafranski]

(from
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)


"Recording industry ups ante for downloads

Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal
for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.

As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a
Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,
industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto
one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Complete hogwash.

 

[dennis@home]

8<


Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In Europe,
every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee to pay royalties
and fair use is the golden rule here.

Are you confusing the extra royalty paid on audio CD blanks?
You don't pay any extra on a pre-recorded CD/DVD other than the usual
rip-off that gets added to any market that is willing to pay.
Also you don't pay any extra on ordinary CD/DVD blanks, which is why so many
audio CD recorders were chipped to use the ordinary blanks.

 

[dennis@home]

Sounds like someone that won't be receiving any of my business to me.
Matter of fact, it'll only make it more likely that I'd choose to buy an
illegal copy instead. An illegal copy won't have the restrictions of a
legal copy and would therefore likely be my preferred choice.

Take music for instance. I have all my songs in a huge library on my hard
drive. So if I want to listen to one particular song, I just have to type
in it's name. If I just want to listen to any one random song of one
artist but any album, I can do so too. If I want to listen to any random
song of my collection, which is usually how I have my media player set
up, I can do that as well.

Now let's compare this with what the RIAA and other DRM advocates would
like. They don't want me to copy the music from my CD. I can no longer do
*ANY* of the above. I'm only able to listen to songs that are on the CD
and nothing else.

Listen to a random song I own? Not possible.
Listen to a random song from any one artist (or selection of)? Not
possible.
Quickly find one particular song I'd like to listen to? While it may be
physically possible to locate the CD quickly, it's still a hassle to have
to switch physical media.

Bottom line, I *DON'T* want that. It makes life for me as a consumer more
difficult and reduces my ability to enjoy my content.

Now if I buy illegal copies...

Listen to a random song I own? Possible.
Listen to a random song from any one artist? Possible.
Quickly find one song? Possible.
Do anything else I like? Possible.

So why would anyone, in a DRM world, choose DRM content when non-DRM
content has clear advantages when it comes to actually using the content?

The same goes for movies. I actually have external hard drives that
contain copies of my movies. As I use my computer with a TV attached to
view my movies, this makes it very easy for me to watch any movie I want
which I *legally* own.

Unfortunately your definition of legal and the legal definition of legal may
be different.
If the RIAA gets its way they will be different.
However they will have an awful lot of people to take to court and if every
one of those bought a few shares in the media companies they would soon
change their minds once they were unemployed.

 

[Tim Slattery]

The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a
willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction.

Ideally, but when it's a transaction between a huge corporation and an
individual, the corporation unilaterally lays down the conditions. The
consumers only choice is not to buy. It's *not* a level playing field.

 

[caver1]

Ideally, but when it's a transaction between a huge corporation and an
individual, the corporation unilaterally lays down the conditions. The
consumers only choice is not to buy. It's *not* a level playing field.

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200text.htm
caver1

 

[DanS]

This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet
had time to update their website. They go into more detail elsewhere,
but here it is from straight from their webpages...

http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?

Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD
for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they
bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and
downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of
compensation for their work.

WRONG !!!! Very few recording artists get a large cut of CD sales. 95% of
profits from CD sales go to the record comapnies.

When record companies are deprived of
critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists
from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the
music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all
benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next
generation of talent.

Now what's REALLY bad for the record companies is the fact that they have
not changed their business model in 70 years. Times change and technology
changes, everything changes and companies have to change as well to keep
up with it.

Here's what I think the music companies should do.....sell direct. Come
on, it cost < $1 to make each CD, so why do we pay so much ?
Distribution. Everyone along the way makes a buck. It DOESN"T go to the
artists.

Why they don't sell direct I don't know. It makes a lot of sense. The
record companies themselves would make more money as thay could actually
charge more per CD selling direct retail instead of to high quantity
distributors, who then sell to smaller qty distributors, until it reaches
the stores.

Here's what I can see.....

A (or several) giant warehouses. All fully automated. A person would
place an order on their website for whatever CD's they want, the order
would be forwarded to the packaging area, the CD(s) would be
automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
shipping method) and then loaded on a truck to go to whatever shipping
depot was chosen.

Almost no human intervention needed once everything is set up and running
properly.

The company could get $5 for each CD, probably 2 to 3 times the amount as
compared to selling in large quantity to other distributors.

Other companies do this, why can't they ? Because they refuse to.

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski
<[email protected]>
wrote

Complete hogwash.

No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.

However, the copying of the disc could be construed as
a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical
copies being generally impossible. It really depends on
how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably
screwed up anyway.

 

[Alias]

Are you confusing the extra royalty paid on audio CD blanks?
You don't pay any extra on a pre-recorded CD/DVD other than the usual
rip-off that gets added to any market that is willing to pay.
Also you don't pay any extra on ordinary CD/DVD blanks, which is why so
many audio CD recorders were chipped to use the ordinary blanks.

We pay what is called a "canon" on blank CDs and DVDs.

Alias

 

[Martha Adams]

That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to
get around the law.
Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is
a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
Sounds like greed to me.
caver1

I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance
called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.
To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is
this it?

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]

 

[caver1]

That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to
get around the law.
Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is
a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
Sounds like greed to me.
caver1

I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance
called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.
To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is
this it?

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]

That's true. Its a real nuisance to the RIAA.
But even probable cause only gives the right to
obtain a warrant or uder the right circumstances
to do a search. It does not give the right to find
someone guilty in its own right.
caver1

 

[caver1]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski
<[email protected]>
wrote


No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.

However, the copying of the disc could be construed as
a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical
copies being generally impossible. It really depends on
how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably
screwed up anyway.

They are not suing him for the copies. Probably
because they couldn't win that one.
He is being sued for sharing which under those
circumstances could be wrong.
I said could be because he hasn't been found
guilty yet.
But just because you could have or might have is
not did.
They should still have to prove that he did.
The butler did it. But you still have to prove
that he did to convict him. Proving that he could
have is not good enough.
caver1

 

[Mark R. Cusumano]

That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to get
around the law.
Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is a
pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
Sounds like greed to me.
caver1

I wonder if he is a member of the NRA. I wonder how that rationale would go
with guns. "You cannot know ahead of time id the person buying a gun is a
murderer or no. So then there should be no legal way to buy guns". Hmm,
I can't see that flying well Actually if you want to stop music piracy
just make the sale of music itself a felony!

 

[dennis@home]

We pay what is called a "canon" on blank CDs and DVDs.

Alias

We don't in the UK.

 

[Alias]

We don't in the UK.

It's a Spanish thing I guess, then. Read about it here:

http://todoscontraelcanon.es/ (In Spanish)

Alias

 

[Darth Chaos]

Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
posts all over the place. 8^)

Tom Lake

I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

 

[Red Henk]

Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
posts all over the place. 8^)

Tom Lake

Since you mentioned the MI5 guy, what's with all that spam about?!
Initially I thought that it was just me or the usenet client that I'm
using but the shit is appearing in all the newsgroups that I subscribe
to. I tried to filter it out but it gets around my filters, by small
changes in the subject name.