THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: JimmyJazz on 03 Jan 2008, 16:11
-
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15357
washingtonpost.com — This sort of legal attack will lead to the end of “fair-use” and back up copies of anything. I can seriously see this extended to the copying machine too.
"Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industrys lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings."
I don't know how they can honestly or effectively go through with this case; they're essentially gonna be categorizing all tech-savy music fans criminals. Though the doubts in my mind make me think they might win this case, knowing what they've gotten away with in the past.
-
In other news: The sky is falling!
-
that is really sad for so many different reasons.
It seems the RIAA is using their power to create lawsuits against individuals as a scare tactic. They have to know that there is no possible way for them to stop content sharing completely, I think this is just another ploy cooked up by the association to minimize their "losses". If they were serious about it they would go after the distributors like torrent trackers and IRC fserves, not the end user.
-
You're completely missing the point here.
That Hannah Montana CD you just legally bought at a store and burned to your iTunes. THAT'S NOW ILLEGAL. YOU'VE COMMITTED A CRIME! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!
-
Hannah Montana :?
-
I understand that is what's happening, but I am just saying TO ME that's what it looks like the RIAA is doing by going after an individual rather than a larger or more visible group.
And who the hell would listen to Hannah Montana?
-
Clearly you are not a ten year old girl.
-
clearly...although I've been told that inside all of us there is a 10 year old girl trying to get out. hrm
-
There's a 10 year old girl trying to get out of my closet.
-
I was waiting for that.
-
I read it as "There's a ten year old girl trying to get out of my chest."
-
I read it as "There's a ten year old girl trying to get out of my chest."
hehehe that would mean the little girl is actually an alien
-
On a slightly related note, whenever I read Zerodrone's post, I imagine John Hurt reading them from a giant leather bound book while smoking a pipe, sitting along in front of a log fire, all alone in a giant dark mansion. There is usually thunder and lightning in the background.
This makes every single one of his post completely amazing.
Oh, and ontopic:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHcan't happen. No way.
-
Next, they're going to file lawsuits against people who lend out cds to one another.
-
Honestly, even if this law passes, they're not going to be confiscating computers and using them as evidence and then erasing them, and I'd like to see who would allow this bill to become law considering its anachronistic and just plain silly. For years and years and years (until last year I believe) a law similar to this one had been in place where it was illegal to copy a CD to a computer, or even videotape something from the television. Yet in the 15 or so years that this law existed, there was not a single charge or even arrest based on it, its the digital version of those silly laws you hear about old towns having that aren't applicable anymore, you're not going to jail for striking the sidewalk with a metal object.
-
Next, they're going to file lawsuits against people who lend out cds to one another.
I have a friend whose dad is a lawyer and sometimes deals with stuff like this, and he doesn't let her borrow CDs from friends. When he goes out and buys a CD, he lets her listen to it then she has to give it back without putting it on her computer.
Sheesh.
If he knew how much music and how many CDs I burn her, I don't think I'd be allowed in that house again.
-
On a slightly related note, whenever I read Zerodrone's post, I imagine John Hurt reading them from a giant leather bound book while smoking a pipe, sitting along in front of a log fire, all alone in a giant dark mansion. There is usually thunder and lightning in the background.
I'm not sure why you feel that way, but I'm taking it as a compliment.
Whenever I read tommy's posts, I imagine a drunken sot in an abandoned pub nursing a pint and muttering to himself.
I intend that as a compliment, as well.
-
Corner him. Ask him why, and when he's answered, ask "why" again. Repeat until he sees what he's doing is pointless.
(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rorder/mindy.gif)
I guess my confusion is how do they "catch" someone who has uploaded a CD? It's not exactly like file-sharing where it's traceable through online connections, IPs, or other web-based information. Or, is it just another thing you are nailed with if caught downloading?
-
At no point have I ever thought the RIAA could not get any worse.
-
It's tough to out-evil Lucifer time and time again but the RIAA have no interest resting on their laurels.
-
They have the internet to keep up with.
-
see, this is absolutely crazy. you've bought the CD, this is doublestamping.
-
When I was 11, I wanted to be Ford Prefect when I grew up.
-
It's not that great.
-
Even the iTunes store rules say you're allowed to make a reasonable amount of personal copies of anything you buy there. This simply doesn't make sense. I have a feeling that this will just make people less likely to try to follow the rules simply because it's the law. I mean, if you're already breaking the law by having music on your computer that you bought on CD, then why avoid breaking the law again and just downloading it online?
What do they expect people to do? Buy a physical CD and buy a second copy from itunes or amazon or someone? Is it still legal to sync your ipod with your itunes library, or is that off limits too?
This is just ridiculous.
-
So essentially if this law passes my music will go from 25% legal to entirely illegal.
I really hope that dosen't bump me up from a misdemeanor to a felony.
-
Hey guys, I think we can all breathe a little easier now
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/
-
I won't breathe easy until the RIAA pretty much just fucks off. If I ever make it big as a recording artist I am going to stay the hell away from those guys just to spite them.
Srsly, free music downloads? Sounds like good free advertisement for live shows, if you ask me.
-
"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?
-
That confused me too. I was just referring to the clear, straightforward part at the top that said they were suing him for illegal downloading, not ripping CDs.
-
That would be pretty pointless if your judges could make common law, wait can they. I understand it but I can't figure out how to explain it.
-
Hadnt this been ruled on before?
EDIT: Wait, never mind, syncing to portable music players were what I was thinking of.
-
I think I saw this on another forum and someone pointed out that by this logic, we're all stealing the internet, since by having it on our screen a temporary copy of whatever website we're looking at is on our computer, meaning we have an illegal copy of copyrighted material on our system.
-
Excuse me while I copyright this post, you terrorist funding hippies.
-
Excuse me while I copyright this post, you terrorist funding hippies.
Too slow, it's mine!
-
Sorry, I've already copyrighted the act of posting.
I expect my royalty cheques in the mail any day now.
-
"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?
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.
-
If they do rule in a way that makes iPods illegal, Apple's gonna be -fucked-
-
Poor them, they were just startin' to really enjoy fuckin' us.
-
If they do rule in a way that makes iPods illegal, Apple's gonna be -fucked-
If it came to that, I'm pretty sure Apple has the resources to fight 'em in the courts.
-
My money's on Apple's legal team beating the RIAA if it came to that, which it won't.
-
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.
Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".
-
I'm waiting for the day the RIAA, not paying attention to their legalese jargon while creating a suite of new lawsuits, make it illegal to buy CDs.
-
Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".
You can do that? Stores actually accept that?
-
I don't know about CDs, but I know people that do it with books.
Pretty sketchy if you ask me.
-
All the record stores around here accept opened new CDs, as long as you have a receipt and it's been less than 10 days or so. Some stores limit you to store credit for them but I think the major chains will let you return pretty much anything.
-
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.
Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".
I'm not a big fan of downloading, but I've always thought this was somehow a bit more of a dickish thing to do.
-
Actually, if you buy a CD and then return it, the label and artist still get the money, it's the record store who has to eat the cost or re-sell it as a "used" copy. So as long as you do it to a major chain store, I think it's morally a bit less dickish than downloading an album.
-
Some stores limit you to store credit for them but I think the major chains will let you return pretty much anything.
I have never had this experience with any media item (DVD, video game, etc.). And as a casual employee of the Target Corporation, I can tell you that definitely does not fly there.
-
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.
-
Jesus, that shit didn't even start with MP3s. I know people who back in the day used to borrow C.D.s from C.D. hire places or from public libraries and then burn them onto blank discs at home or record them onto cassettes before returning the C.D.s by the due date.
-
I used to do that shit. Does it make me a bad person? Yes. Do I really care? Not so much.
-
Did you know that you were killing music at the time?
-
I use BitTorrent, do you think I would've cared either way? :B
-
Jesus, that shit didn't even start with MP3s. I know people who back in the day used to borrow C.D.s from C.D. hire places or from public libraries and then burn them onto blank discs at home or record them onto cassettes before returning the C.D.s by the due date.
I just did that with Soft Bulletin, I was going to do it to Pet Sounds but the dick who borrowed it hasn't -after six weeks, loans are for 3 weeks max- returned it yet.
-
The irony of that post amuses me.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)
...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. "
So you see, the RIAA isn't quite as bad as they've been made out to seem.
BUT!
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.
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.
-
"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?
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.
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.
-
"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 thing that bothers me here? I have a password-protected wireless network. My sharing folders (which, incidentally, contain an alias for my music folders) are protected with a different password. If they want to go and tell me that that's illegal, they can piss off, I'm not doing illegal file transfers, I just happen to have a backup for all my shit on another computer.
Not only that, but what about moving files from a Windows-formatted external hard drive to a MacOS-formatted hard drive in a permanent transition from PC to Mac? I sure as hell can't just plug the Mac-formatted XHD into my PC and say "o hay do it plz," it just doesn't work that way. The only way I've ever been able to successfully and efficiently transfer files was through my network. Telling me that doing that is illegal? No, fuck you, RIAA, I am not going to manually transfer files from the PC to my 1GB CompactFlash card and manually place them in a folder on my Mac's hard drive. That's not time-efficient and contrary to popular belief I kindof have shit I like to do with my time.
tl;dr fuck those guys. I don't just up and give people my entire library of music over my network, if they want to steal music they can put their own asses on the line like I do with BitTorrent. Every file transfer I have ever done between computers on my network has been from MY computer to MY other computer, nobody else's.
-
Jesus, that shit didn't even start with MP3s. I know people who back in the day used to borrow C.D.s from C.D. hire places or from public libraries and then burn them onto blank discs at home or record them onto cassettes before returning the C.D.s by the due date.
I think we're all missing the real issue here, which is that Inlander types the periods in C.D. O.M.G.
-
Brings new meaning to O.C.D.?
-
Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.
"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial," Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
This strikes me as patently ridiculous. You expect us to believe that a corporate lawyer misheard a vital question at trial and then answered it in a way that doesn't really make sense if it is answering what Sony say she thought it was answering but does if it's a question about CD ripping?
-
I think we're all missing the real issue here, which is that Inlander types the periods in C.D. O.M.G.
That's the way they taught me, back in the day. Put the full-stops in initials and abbreviations. Then one day they turn around and tell me it's all different now? Man, hell no!
-
Someone get this man a school bus with clerestory windows. (obscure?)
-
Not obscure. It is established that the dude is raw.
-
Here's an article from today from the BBC on copying CDs...
Millions of people already "rip" discs to their computers and move the files to MP3 players, although the process is technically against copyright law.
Copying CDs is against the law in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm) according to this BBC article.
Of course, nobody's ever been prosecuted for it, but still, it's interesting that it's technically not legal, and the Intellectual Property Minister says the laws should be changed to make it legal, but still, it's interesting!
-
I think it's impossible to broadly define "interesting" without a dictionary.
All my English teachers have banned it.
-
The Dictionary or "interesting", either one or both would be ridiculous.
-
Oh shit, Demonoid's back?
/didn't read the article
-
Damnit man you had me mad excited for a minute. Bastard.
-
Is RIAA only in America? Anyways, the RIAA seem a bit like a schoolteacher. 'You can't argue with my because my opinion is stupid and misinformed! I'm going to take away ALL YOUR PRIVILEGES!'
-
Oh, damn. What about UK?
Actually, it more reminds me of the teacher who was threatening to tell the headteacher and have a meeting with my parents because apparently I made a sarcastic remark (which i didn't).
-
Bumping this thread because apparently God exists after all. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080111-under-pressure-from-emi-riaa-could-disappear.html) Maybe.
damn, game politics is slow (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/01/15/is-the-riaa-going-bye-bye/)
And the Uk version is the IFPI I believe
-
Both articles mention that EMI is the smallest of "the four major labels" though neither of them mention who the other three are. I guess I'm wondering why one of the four, and the smallest one at that, would have so much power. If EMI were to pull out, would the strain on the other three be so immense that the RIAA collapses? I don't see any kind of explanation in either article. They both just say that EMI pulling out could spell the end of both the RIAA and the IFPI, but they don't actually say why.
-
The other three are Sony BMG, Warner and Universal.
I assume EMI's strength comes from it being the only company in the four dedicated solely to music, but this is solely conjecture.
-
Thanks for the info.
As much as I'd love to hear about the demise of the RIAA, someone just coming out and saying "this could be the end" without any explanation why just strikes me as the media trying to stir things up where there's really nothing to be stirred. They kinda like to do that when they're bored.
-
Also, no matter how comparitively small EMI's market share is in comparison with Sony/BMG, Warner, and Universal, they are still 9% of the British market share, and even though they are losing money (about 260 million GBP in 2007), they are still giving a large amount of money to the cause. Even if we assume that among the "Big Four", EMI is only giving 10% of the RIAA's money, they are still giving a huge amount.