Fun Stuff > BAND
Just when you thought the RIAA couldn't get any worse....
Thrillho:
The irony of that post amuses me.
ALoveSupreme:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 05 Jan 2008, 14:58 ---It must vary by location. The Gamestop here lets you return games and DVDs, I know Wal-Mart lets you return basically anything. I know someone who returned an opened PS2, no questions asked.
--- End quote ---
I guess it's true with Gamestops, I've had experience returning a game for credit. That's a little baffling that a major chain like Wal Mart gets away with that, though.
We return PS2 units at Target, though. I don't think that's much of an issue. I tell ya, some of the shit you see working service desk returns... and in a personal experience, I don't use the term shit metaphorically.
Darkbluerabbit:
The more the RIAA claim is illegal, the less seriously I will take them. They are venturing into "you can't because we say so!" territory at this point.
I copy my CDs and keep the originals in their cases at home safe from scratches and theft. I've had two wallets full of CDs stolen in my life. The first time I lost all of my CDs and I was really pissed. The second time I just laughed, because I don't carry originals anymore (also because someone I dislike had their purse stolen in the same break-in. I'm petty). I was annoyed that I lost the wallet, but the whole thing was full of burned discs that the dipshit klepto probably wouldn't like anyway. If the RIAA wants to prevent me from protecting my music collection, fuck 'em.
schimmy:
The lawsuit isn't about copying CDs for personal use. It's about file sharing, as usual. A journalist just (presumably deliberately) quoted the RIAA misleadingly:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
--- Quote from: that story ---...the quotes cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law.
"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about putting them into a shared folder."
The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music files via peer-to-peer networks. "
--- End quote ---
So you see, the RIAA isn't quite as bad as they've been made out to seem.
BUT!
--- Quote from: that same article ---Here was an opportunity for Sherman to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
--- End quote ---
So, the RIAA could be leaving themselves open to make a move on copying CDs later, but I sincerely doubt it. It's been said in the thread before: If they go too far, they'll have to fight Apple, and any and every manufacturer of MP3 players. They're not that stupid.
Orbert:
--- Quote from: My Aim Is True on 05 Jan 2008, 01:19 ---
--- Quote from: Orbert on 04 Jan 2008, 15:22 ---"While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?"
Help me, I'm stupid. I've been through that little section there three times, and I'm still not sure what it means.
It sounds like it's saying that presumably, ripping a copy of a CD you own is fair use, but has never been tested in court as such. I follow that. So the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot because "a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal." Meaning it will remain untested in court unless/until the RIAA tries to argue that ripping a copy of your CD is not fair use? Isn't that what's happening right now?
--- End quote ---
let me break it down.
1. Copying a CD onto your ocmputer, without shairng it, is PROBABLY LEGAL, but has never been tested.
2. The RIAA now wants to say that it is illegal to do so.
3. The legality of copying for personal use will now be tested.
4. A judge will rule that it IS legal to copy a CD for yourself. The RIAA will lose that specific point, which would not have ahppened if they hadn't brought it up.
the only way that the RIAA's argument here makes any sense, hypothetically, is if they claim that after putting a CD you own onto your ipod, you must delete the copy off the computer. Otherwise, they are implying that ipods are illegal.
--- End quote ---
Thank you. I now feel less stupid. Or more, I'm not sure, since I guess it wasn't that hard to figure out.
About returning CDs versus returning Playstations: If you return a CD opened, there's a good chance that you've already listened to it, and the possibility that you've made a copy. Around here (Chicago), most stores will not accept an opened CD unless it's defective and you're exchanging it for another copy of the same CD. I agree that since a copy of the CD is still sold, it is a bit less dickish than just downloading. But if you return a Playstation, there's very little chance that you made a copy of it at home, so it's just merchandise being returned, so as long as it's in good shape and they can box it up and resell it, I don't see a problem. It's that whole "intellectual property" thing that makes it complicated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version