RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use'

dotpavan writes "EFF has this article about RIAA saying that ripping CDs and backing them up does not come under Fair use. Ars Technica also reports on this, by quoting, "The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights.""

Big surprise

[nagora (177841)]

An organisation whose entire business model is now to resell the same product over and over again is hardly going to say that buying it once is enough. But in a world of "one dollar, one vote", who's going to stop them?

Re:Big surprise

[nagora (177841)]

It seems to me that the arguement in the article is just further incentive to not buy CDs.

Which is exactly what the RIAA wants; they make far more off a download than a CD, at least on a per-track basis. Ringtones even more so. And for a lower quality product.

TWW

Re:Big surprise

[toph42 (160730)]

Yes, and then they can cry about piracy causing a slump in CD sales and call for even more draconian "reforms." Copyrights were provided for in the Constitution as a neccesary evil, only to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." When the copyright laws stifle rather than promote that progress, then they need to be repealed.

Re:Big surprise

[Xymor (943922)]

Actually each one of these places you can play your files is one copy, and since you have a limited amount of copies, you're gonna have to re-buy the same song you already own once you have no copies left.
In my understadnding, once you buy a CD, you have a license to play it's songs in any format, in as many devices as you want and as many cars you have.
Another problem is iTunes proprietary format not being compatible with all media devices(or devices not compatible with DRMed media in general).

Re:Big surprise

[montyzooooma (853414)]

Downloaded tracks cost relatively more than the CD version and you have less control over what you can do with them. With the CD you can rip it, lend it, play it or turn it into a shiny coaster if you want. Just because the RIAA doesn't think it's fair use to rip your CD to your iPod doesn't mean they are right. The only downside to the CD is that there are often only a half or a third of the songs on it that you'll actually listen to. That's a big downside though.

Re:Big surprise

[msobkow (48369)]

The **AA has spent the past 20 years trying to change the rules. You used to be able to send back cassettes or albums for replacements when damaged; the only charge was shipping.

Now they tell you it can't be replaced, because that version has been replaced by a "new" release, even with relatively-recently purchased media.

Currently they're trying to cut it back further, so that it's not even legal for you to listen to your media on a portable device without paying yet again.

To hell with the greedy bastards. Once or twice at the trough was more than enough -- no more.

Re:Big surprise

[freedom_india (780002)]

If RIAA sells a media (a CD treated like a chair) then they have no FUCKIN right to tell me whether i resell it, rip it, or use it to wipe my ass if my toilet paper runs out.

If they treat it as a license to listen to something (like Windows CDs), then they MUST replace a damaged CD.

They can't have it both ways.

Courts have ruled for past 150 years that the concept of reselling something is sacred. In other words if RIAA sells something to me, i have every right to make a second sale of it to someone i like. RIAA loses the right to dictate whether i can sell it or not once they have sold it to me.

On the other hand, if they license it to me, then we ALL should send back Akon CDs to them (even perfectly good ones) and ask for replacement. That would bankrupts them.

Re:Big surprise

[jocknerd (29758)]

I respectfully disagree completely. In my opinion, buying a CD that has no copy protection on it is the only way music should be purchased at this time. Forget what the RIAA says. I can rip my CD's to my iPod. Why? Because the technology is there and the courts have granted me Fair Use rights.

And why do I want to own CD's instead of songs from iTMS? Several reasons. One, its a physical copy that can be resold. And two, because legally purchased music from online stores such as iTMS have DRM built in. Sure, Apple's Fair Play DRM is the least restrictive measure of DRM there is. But its still restrictive. How? Try playing your music through TiVo's desktop software. It can't play DRM'd AAC files. But every CD player in the world can play a true CD. And that CD can be legally ripped to a format of my liking regardless of what the RIAA's lawyers want to say. And the Fair Play DRM is also on Apple's videos on iTMS. But guess what, unlike the music, they won't let you copy these videos. So, essentially, you are locked into using iTunes and Quicktime for these videos. Which brings up the real reason for DRM. Vendor lock-in.

Sure, the RIAA pretty much insisted that Apple use DRM when they opened iTMS. But it has screwed the RIAA ever since. Had they not insisted on DRM, iTMS would not have the upper hand in their battle with the RIAA. Apple may not have wanted DRM then, but I guarantee you they want it now. Why? Because if the music on iTMS doesn't have DRM, then it would be much easier for you to purchase music from iTMS and play it on any player out there. With the DRM, you are pretty much forced into using the iPod. Do you think that Apple would give up the vendor lock-in now? And what if an independent artist wanted to put their music on iTMS but didn't want any DRM. I wonder if Apple would go along with that or would Apple insist on DRM. Has anybody tried this? I'd be interested to know what Apple said. This would tell once and for all Apple's stance on the DRM issue.

Baloney. How did that get modded up?

[Viewsonic (584922)]

Apple specifically tells you to back your songs up the moment you purchase them by burning them onto an audio CD with the iTunes software itself! At which point you not only have a hard copy of the music you just bought from iTunes, but it is now DRM FREE. You can rerip that CD as many times as you want with NO DRM on the actual files. You can even do this with iTunes itself!

Your whole point about CDs costing less than iTunes is also bunk. Nearly every album on iTunes that can be bought as an album costs quite a bit LESS than any copy I can find in the stores on CD unless they are clearencing them out.

Your DRM tin foil hat theory is disturbing.

Buy it again, Sam.

[IIDX (873577)]

"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."

Thanks, so I'll just buy another copy. Great solution.

Re:Buy it again, Sam.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just print your own money to pay for them with. If anyone complains point out that "replacements are readily available (from banks) at affordable prices".

Re:Buy it again, Sam.

[Maximum Prophet (716608)]

Um, I have several CD that are no longer available, except perhaps, used, at higher prices than I paid for them. Changes One and Two by Bowie come to mind.

Re:Buy it again, Sam.

[by Anonymous Coward]

False. There are many recordings that have gone out of print and probably won't reappear, especially in the classical genre. Try finding Philip Pickett's recording of Susato's "Dansereye" (released 1994, just twelve years ago), or Horenstein's recording of Mahler's Third, considered to be one of, if not THE best, interpretations. (Yes, it's available from Amazon.uk, but not in America.) The Boston Symphony Chamber Players' recording of Stravinsky's "The Soldier's Tale", with John Gielgud, Tom Courtenay, and Ron Moody has never made it onto CD from LP. THAT is an awesome interpretation. And on the Celtic side, the early LP recordings of the Boys of the Lough are unlikely to ever appear on CD. And those are just a few examples from my own library!

So unless you buy nothing but popular crap, you had better back up your recordings or they will be lost to everyone forever if the RIAA wins this fight.

Re:Buy it again, Sam.

[Billosaur (927319)]

As we say in Joisy, if a member of the RIAA board becomes, shall we say, "damaged", replacements are available at a reasonable cost...

Re:Buy it again, Sam.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Your own silly fault for not buying several copies of the same CD the first time around, affording you a level of redundancy!

I feel so sorry for the poor RIAA, having to deal with you tightwads with limited storage space, and welcome the day when they can download whatever they want directly into the back of your brain and charge it to your bank account.

No CDs

[Agent00Wang (146185)]

So are they arguing that you have to buy music from an online dealer (something akin to iTunes) if you want to be able to use your portable device? Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs.

you FUD-spreading tool

[RMH101 (636144)]

iTunes ripped CDs have zero DRM in them. nothing. nada. iTunes *downloaded* tunes do.

What about...

[orderthruchaos (770967)]

a boycott? Seriously... it seems the only way to get the attention of hostile businesses is to deny them income.

Backup and preservation of investment?

[richardoz (529837)]

When I was a kid my, my friend's dad has an audiophile turntable, cassette deck and reel-to-reel setup. When I would purchase and album, I would take it over to his house and copy it to cassette and sometimes reel-to-reel. I would never play the album again unless I lost or damaged the cassette. What options would I have today if the RIAA has their way?

Re:Backup and preservation of investment?

[Overzeetop (214511)]

You clearly don't have a three year old in your house.

Re:Backup and preservation of investment?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of disc rot [brainwashed.com]? You wanna see the pile of CDs I have that have degraded to the point of non-playability? Its not disc rot, and I'm not sure what it is, but I even have a bunch of CDs that have developed random pin-holes while sitting in their cases after I ripped them to MP3. They are now unplayable. I've never been able to track down a cause, but I spot checked a few friends collections (who also ripped them long ago and don't use them any more) and they are starting to see the same thing on some of their older CDs.

I hope this comes to court

[mwvdlee (775178)]

With that particular declaration under oath in the Grokster case in mind, I hope this comes to court.
The only question that remains then is "which of the two statements is perjury?".

Re:I hope this comes to court

[lost_packet (67330)]

technically, only MGM admitted as much

At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement. MGM's answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one's own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM's side of the case who don't think that example is one bit legal. But they've now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they'll be barred from challenging "ripping" in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In any event, though, MGM's iPod example did exactly what their proposed standard expressly doesn't do: it evaluated the legality of the invention based on the knowledge available to the inventor at the time, not from a post hoc perspective that asks how the invention is subsequently marketed or what business models later grow up around it.

from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tka/2005/03/29#a53 [harvard.edu]

Let me get this straight

[Snarfangel (203258)]

"Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."

I thought I was "licensing the content," not "buying the CD." Shouldn't I be able to put my licensed content wherever I want?

Until the companies offer free download replacement of the music I am (ahem) licensing, so I can store that content on a blank CD or wherever else I want, why should I care what they consider "affordable"?

Re:Let me get this straight

[tinkerghost (944862)]

I HAVE IT
CDs are like particle waves.
CD's obviously have 2 mutually exclusive, but simultanious behaviours - just like photons.
If you do the math one way, photons are a wave. Use different criteria, and poof they are particles.
CD's are no different, we substitute law for math, liscense for wave, objects for particles, and CD's for photons.
The result: if you do the law one way, CD's are a liscence. Use different criteria, and poof they are objects.
WHOOT - PATENT TIME: Quantum Law.
Now if I can only work out a theory of relativity that shows how software is relavent to patents...

What rights?

[Miros (734652)]

If you ask me, the RIAA "enjoys" its copyrights a bit too much already. They're trying to transform the music industry from one in which you "buy a copy of a song" into one in which you "buy a limited licence to play the song" under which you have no fair use rights (since you dont actually own the copy, only the right to play it). This is bad for all of us, and I would suggest that companies like Apple really helped pull off the bait and switch. At this point, if people stopped using the online download services and started using CDs again instead (for the rights) the record companies would probably pull the CDs or encrypt them somehow so you still had to be bound by their overrarching licensing agreements.

Sorry guys, but I think the age of "my music" or "owning music" is dead, and currently in the process of being burried. This is just the latest shovel of dirt.

Re:What rights?

[pla (258480)]

Sorry guys, but I think the age of "my music" or "owning music" is dead, and currently in the process of being burried. This is just the latest shovel of dirt.

Last shovel of dirt, yes - But on the RIAA, not on our right to own our culture.

Slashdotters (and all people) need to keep in mind the difference between a major country's legal systems saying "fair use does not include a right to backups" and the RIAA spewing yet another round of customer-repelling male cow feces. The former means a lot of people turn into criminals overnight by the wave of the magic wand-of-exclusive-law. The latter means... Nothing at all.

Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

[NutscrapeSucks (446616)]

Look it up. RIAA sued Creative in the early days of MP3 players and lost.

That's simply not true

[91degrees (207121)]

Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.

I have several CDs that I couldn't replace easily. Sometimes they go out of print.

Re:That's simply not true

[mwvdlee (775178)]

I have a number of promotional give-away CD's.
These are perfectly legal, but some of the companies which distributed them no longer exist, so I cannot get copies from them even if I wanted to pay full price.

Sometimes entire companies go "out of print" too!

What a ripoff...

[IcePenguin2001 (518109)]

RIAA Goon 1: Okay, so we want to make a bunch more money because we're greedy bastards. How do we do it?

RIAA Goon 2: Let's sell CDs covered with heroin! Then they'll need to keep buying more CDs to get their fix!

G1: Although we're above the law, I don't wanna use heroin. It's expensive.

G2: Hmm... I've got it! Let's charge them for something they ALREADY OWN!

G1: Great Scott!! Like what?

G2: We'll tell those suckers that ripping CDs to MP3 players (especially iPods!!) is illegal and that they'll need to buy DIGITAL (ooooh the d-word) music for their MP3 players.

G1: Brilliant! Except, we already said that was legal when we sued Grokster.

G2: Well, say now it isn't!! The dumb consumers bend to us!! We are above the law!!

G1: Well, all right. Good idea, Jim. I'm gonna go now, I have $2.4 million from Britney Spears' latest album to roll around in and wipe my ass with. See ya!

Legally speaking...

[MaestroSartori (146297)]

...they could be correct. I don't know the law well enough to say - if memory serves correct, it gives some examples of things which are fair use, none of which include anything like backing up or shifting from one media to another for personal use. So yeah, technically they could be correct.

But I think most people would agree that fairness is also a moral concept, and in that sense it's obvious that it is indeed fair use to copy something you already have to your MP3 player or PC to listen to in a more convenient way.

Here's a hint to the lovely people at the RIAA and similar bodies around the world: if people can't use CDs in this kind of way, they won't buy them.

Congress was not impressed with their arguments

[lheal (86013)]

January 24 on C-SPAN there were hearings on Senator Smith's Broadcast Flag bill.

The RIAA spokesman said the Broadcast Flag was needed because with HD radio
(which is just digitial radio), now people could record music off the air
without paying for it. They want to stop that. They put forth the CD ripping argument, too, saying there was nothing to prevent people from copying songs willy-nilly and sharing them, denying royalties to the struggling artists.

The Senators didn't like his view at all. It seems that many of them have
IPods, and like to grab songs, interviews, and other audio so they can listen to
them on the plane! They like their Dean Martin as much as the kids like their Ice Masta Jam.

I was pleased to see liberals and conservatives both on the side of fair use,
rather than on the side of corporate profit. I think they've been getting mail.

What are we buying?

[plumby (179557)]

I'm a little confused. When I buy a CD, am I buying the physical disc, in which case I surely get the right to do with it as I see fit, or I'm buying the right to listen to the music, in which case the media that it's on should not be relevant.

I can fully understand (assuming that I am only buying the rights) that I can't legally copy the music and give/sell that to someone else, but I'm no longer clear on what 'buying' a CD actually buys me.

Dear RIAA,

[Jerk City Troll (661616)]

16 million iPod sales in 2005 alone. Nearly one billion songs purchased from iTMS. 90% and 70% market share respectively. Just thought I'd remind you that the market has spoken and you're old. In closing, screw you.

Sincerely,
Everyone

Is my iPod different from a cassette deck?

[cob666 (656740)]

How is ripping a CD I bought and listening to that music on my iPod different than recording a CD I bought onto a cassette and listening to that out of my boom box? Didn't the RIAA already have a 'fair use' tax placed on blank media that takes this into consideration?

What the RIAA doesn't realize is that there are quite a few people like me that ONLY purchase CDs so I can listen to them on my iPod. Before getting a portable mp3 player I would purchase perhaps one CD per year (I listened to the radio in my car and at work). Now I buy CDs so I have new content for my mp3 player.

The RIAA will be shooting themselves in their collective FOOT if they turn a CD into a 'limited playability license'. I for one would not buy another CD if I didn't have legal 'fair use' rights to the content.

I haven't bought a physical CD in years...

[HaloZero (610207)]

...and now I'm certainly not going to.

'Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.'

Next, I'm sure they're going to say that copying the contents of a data CD (Microsoft Office, or Frontstep CRM) to a network software repository is infringant use on that license. Just prevents me from having to

1. Find the CD once I know that I need it...
   
2. Determine that the CD isn't being kept in the master disc binder...
   
3. Determine which of my coworkers was the last to use it...
   
4. Try to root through their crap in an attempt to find it.

Back to music discs, though.

So I'm not allowed to store the data on a networked disk drive to enjoy throughout my own personal network, nor am I allowed to play it on my own iPod, iPod Pico, or Rio Karma, or whatever the hell it is you kids have nowadays.

Am I breaking the 'license' I bought when I play it in a CD player with 120second or 300second skip protection? Technically, the data has been encoded to digital media, and is therefore must be mutable into a file format.

Online alternatives would seem like the solution. Because then I can just download an album, burn it to a disc, rerip it without copy protection, and REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

Seriously, this shit has got to stop. Maybe satelite radio is where it's at...

Contradictions...

[morgdx (688154)]

From Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v Grokster, Donald Verrilli representing the petitioners:

...and let me pick out the iPod as one, because it's the most current example, I guess. From the moment that device was introduced, it was obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial uses for it. And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod...

Funny how I can't find this on anyone's website anymore

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argum ent_transcripts/04-480.pdf [supremecourtus.gov]

Re:Contradictions...

[cthenkel (940304)]

Well, its still up on their website. Someone should let their webmaster know that their site needs updating to reflect the RIAA's new position on ripping CDs.

http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand [riaa.com]

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail."

This is too much...

[ursabear (818651)]

[rant]

I understand copyrights and piracy and all the issues around all that. That isn't my focus for this article...

If it is indeed the RIAA's choice to try to prohibit putting one's music on one's portable, this latest thing is lunacy. It IS fair use to listen to one's music on alternate devices that one owns!!! Every artist I know (including myself) WANTS people to listen to their music!!! How is this latest thing going to PROMOTE music? How is it going to create or keep FANS interested?

I don't normally get hot under the collar about this stuff, but this isn't very smart on their part. When you've bought a CD or bought tunes from some service, the listener has every right to want to listen to it! Putting a copy on a portable (or putting it on a backup CD) doesn't amount to piracy - it is normal use.

Many of us give away music in an effort to try to get people to discover our sounds. MOST of us WANT people to jam/groove/listen to our music while doing things that are important to fans (music is a part of daily life for most folks, and me, personally, I'd like to be a part of that - my musical friends feel the same way) and portables are a ubiquitous means of "being there."

You CAN'T forget about fans, RIAA! Period!

[/rant]

Sorry for the rant post, Slashdot. I feel better now.

What about citizens enjoying the public domain?

[Luscious868 (679143)]

Thanks to likes of the RIAA and MPAA, citizens are no longer able to enjoy the benefits of works entering the public domain in a reasonable period of time. The original intent of copyrights and patents was to give the copyright/patent holder a reasonable but limited amount of time to profit from their work before it became avaialable in the public domain to benefit everyone.

The RIAA and MPAA have essentially trampled on all of our rights as citizens in order to make some more money. Now, I think most of us are reasonable people here and we want to see people get rewarded for their work but the current copyright laws are just plain stupid. I'd prefer 25 years but I'd be willing to let that time limit be doubled. 50 years is more than enough time for any person or corporation to reap the benefits of their creations. After 50 years, copyrighted material should enter the public domain.

Remember that copyrights and patents aren't some inherient right. Copyrights and patents are contracts between creators and every other citizen of this counry. We agree to give the creator an exclusive right to control who can reproduce a work with the understanding that after a certain limited amount of time the work will enter the public domain so that everyone can benefit from it.

Why does no one get it?

[athlon02 (201713)]

It's so obvious people...

You need to buy a copy of the song for EVERY piece of hardware. See you get the CD for your CD player. You buy the songs online to put on your MP3 player. You buy a DVD-Audio copy for your DVD drive. You buy the songs online again for your MP3 CD's for your car stereo. Oh, and lest we forget, you write a check to RIAA for the copies of the songs that are in your head. Wait, you HAVEN'T written your check yet? You should be ashamed!

Quick, RIAA, fix your website!

[yeremein (678037)]

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

Source [riaa.com]

Replacement CDs

[JustNiz (692889)]

You're not buying the CD, you're buying the rights to play the music. Furthermore their mechanisms DO prevent you from copying CDs (unlike their argument goes). See the Sony case.
Therefore:
If you're not allowed to make your own backups then the music industry should accept that providing you have proof of original purchase they have to provide you with replacments on demand when the original gets lost, scratched or whatever.

Lets not even get into what happens if (like me) you emigrate to a different country and your whole DVD collection (hundreds) won't play anymore because of the purely artificial restriction enforced by region code.

Anyone read RIAA.com?

[Kcowolf (954974)]

From the "Ask the RIAA" section of their website (http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand [riaa.com]) :

What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. (emphasis mine)

It appears that the RIAA have backed into a corner

[GuyverDH (232921)]

And have nowhere to turn.

They've sued their customer base.
They've spent millions on ineffective marketing campaigns.
They've pushed labels to cookie-cutter their music and bands.
Now they wonder how they're going to raise profits?

If they move forward with restricting our right to backup a flimsy media so that we can listen to the music that we've purchased the right to listen to, then we the community need to fire back.

ie - counter-sue the RIAA/MPAA on the grounds that we pay money for a product that is INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.

They produce a products that are brittle, easy to break. They produce products which require a scratch free surface to play properly, yet the products are made of a material that scratches almost by air flowing over it. They produce products which illegally extend copyright, by making the encryption never ending.

I'd say there's enough there to start a massive world-wide class-action lawsuit and force them to refine their product, at no additional cost to us, so that they are scratch resistant, and have an encryption method that turns itself off after the legal copyright limit.

If they cannot do that, then they'll have to retract their position, and allow us to make backups of their defective products.

Running at Cross Purposes

[jasonditz (597385)]

I'm getting the sense here that the RIAA and the online downloadable music companies which are going to be their major source of future revenue are running at cross-purposes here.

The downloadable music companies like Apple have always tried to argue that deep down we knew there was something "wrong" with using the illegal download services... that it was not just marginally illegal, but immoral. The RIAA's ever broadening definition of what violates their copyright keeps cheapening that concept.

To be honest with you, once affordable legal downloads became available I started switching over to them for convenience sake, and also for the added bonus of not being in violation of any laws. But now the RIAA comes along and says "guess what, that Culture Club CD you bought 10 years ago and ripped onto your hard drive because you don't own any audio CD players anymore... that was a crime". Well, at this point I'm breaking the law anyhow. So my choice is to either shell out a few grand to replace ever cassette tape and CD I ever bought with iTunes, or to keep playing the ripped, but legally owned stuff, knowing that the RIAA is still going to bitch.

But you know what? This probably does have an effect on how I'm going to buy music in the future. If the RIAA is going to argue that downloading a bunch of Bjork songs off a P2P service is the legal equivalent to going to Best Buy and buying the CDs and ripping them to my hard drive... there's no good reason for me to shell out the money anymore, is there?

If you can't listen to music anymore without being a criminal, then why pay for the priviledge?

Re:These people really don't get it do they?

[Miros (734652)]

That isnt their goal at all, in fact, it's quite the opposite. They're trying to kill the CD market in favor of the online download business. Onine downloads do not give us the same rights that buying a CD does, in fact, we get less rights (seemingly only the limited right to play the song, and copy it to another medium a limited number of times). By making CDs more expensive or difficult to acquire, or incompatible with portable music players, they can cause the market to shift itself to mediums that they can better control, even before the CD becomes completely obsolete.

Re:Very affordable

[Hogwash McFly (678207)]

We don't need no litigation
We don't need no rights control
No play restriction on our iPod
Execs leave us buyers alone

True colors shining through

[Steve525 (236741)]

... but this is simply going too far!

I'm glad that the RIAA has made these statements. Before when their arguement for stronger copywrite protection was "Look at what Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are doing", they had an arguement that the politicians/judges could be sympathetic to. Now if their arguement is "Fair use; people don't need no stinking fair use," I don't think the politicians and judges are going to be as sympathetic. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't still get their way, but at least it's a lot easier to argue against them.

Unfortunately, unlike you (if you are actually going to do what you claim) I don't think too many people care enough to do anything about it.