Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet Media Music News

RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use' 830

Posted by samzenpus
from the buy-another-copy dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use'

Comments Filter:
  • Big surprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nagora (177841) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:55AM (#14731613)
    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?
  • Buy it again, Sam. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IIDX (873577) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:56AM (#14731614)
    "Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."

    Thanks, so I'll just buy another copy. Great solution.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:05AM (#14731680)
      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".
    • by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:15AM (#14731752)
      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.
    • by Rev Wally (814101)
      What about those CDs that go out of print?

      About 10% of the CDs that I own, I would never be able to find again.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:24AM (#14731820)
        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.

    • by bloodredsun (826017) <martin.bloodredsun@com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:25AM (#14731834) Journal

      "Affordable prices"

      Which in the UK would be 15 quid for an album with probably 3 or 4 good tracks and the rest as fillers, so there's no way that I'd be buying another copy. Frankly, the Recording Industry Ass. of America are having a laugh.

      I'd rather back up all my CDs (and of course rip them to my iPod), leave the originals at home and put the copy in my car/take to work, so should one get damaged/be stolen I haven't lost anything. At no point have I engaged in file trading or selling of pirated copies, I've merely protected my (costly) investment. Now that's fair use, and to complain that it's not is why the Recording Industry Ass. of America are labelled "Pigopolists".

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:29AM (#14731865)
      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.
    • by idonthack (883680) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:47AM (#14731988)
      My friend's house burned down, and most of his three thousand CDs had major smoke damage. They were unlistenable. Estimate fifteen dollars per CD.
      3,000 × $15 = $45,000
      Right, right. Very affordable prices.
    • by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother@NOsPAm.optonline.net> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:56AM (#14732071) Journal

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

  • No CDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Agent00Wang (146185) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:56AM (#14731615) Homepage
    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.
  • What about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orderthruchaos (770967) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:57AM (#14731622)
    a boycott? Seriously... it seems the only way to get the attention of hostile businesses is to deny them income.
  • by richardoz (529837) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:57AM (#14731626) Homepage
    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?
    • What options would I have today if the RIAA has their way?

      Recording devices would be illegal and all legal turntables would have a surface scratching device right behind the needled to ensure that you could only play it once and then have to buy it again in the name of "protecting the copyrights of the poor poor artists."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:57AM (#14731628)
    " Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."

    No duh. When my "The Wall" CD was wrecked, I found the music on Kazaa Lite, and it as at an extremely affordable price I could not refuse.
  • Enjoy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShadowsHawk (916454) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:59AM (#14731636)
    " Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights."

    Since when did enjoy == screw the customer for every last dime?

  • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:00AM (#14731641) Homepage
    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?".
    • by lost_packet (67330) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:37AM (#14731906)
      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]
    • by spiritraveller (641174) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:00AM (#14732105)
      Neither statement is perjury, because neither statement is made under oath... These statements are just arguments made by the lawyers. One is made in a brief and the other was made in oral arguments in a completely different case, with different parties.

      As a lawyer, I can say whatever I want to a court, and the court knows that. If I make a bold statement that turns out to be false, it may affect my credibility with the court; it may cause me to be found in contempt of court; it may ruin my reputation and cause me to hang my head in shame... but it ain't perjury.

      Realize also, that these are statements of what the lawyer believes the law to be. They aren't statements of "this happened" or "that happened". It's the same as when the Independent Counsel asked Clinton "Is it true or not that you are the highest law enforcement officer in the country?" It's a question of legal opinion, and not a factual matter, so it isn't perjury.

      Now, when you get sworn in and you say "I didn't have sex with that woman (koala bear) (llama) (whatever the case may be)." That would be perjury.
  • buffering... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by muftak (636261) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:00AM (#14731645)
    Ripping a CD that you own to an mp3 player, is just like your CD player reading the cd ahead into a buffer. Are the RIAA saying that CD players with buffers are illegal?
  • by Snarfangel (203258) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:01AM (#14731653) Homepage
    "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"?
    • by tinkerghost (944862) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:24AM (#14732318) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miros (734652) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:02AM (#14731657)
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla (258480) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:14AM (#14731743) Journal
      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.
  • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:03AM (#14731666)
    Look it up. RIAA sued Creative in the early days of MP3 players and lost.
  • by 91degrees (207121) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:03AM (#14731669) Journal
    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.
    • by Vo0k (760020)
      We had a damaged legal copy of Windows CD at the university. The replacement disk costed over twice as much as the local (commercial) pirate charges for the CD and over 1/3 of the full licensed version.
      We bought the CD from the pirate and later claimed it was a backup copy from before the original got scratched.
    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:20AM (#14731791) Homepage
      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!
  • by IcePenguin2001 (518109) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:03AM (#14731672)
    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!
  • by Charles Dodgeson (248492) <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:03AM (#14731673) Homepage Journal
    If they persuade me or the courts that they are right, then I believe that I've purchased my last CD. Surely they must realize that they are putting an end to the CD business this way, and therefore albums. As they say, we'll all use alternatives to buying CDs.

    One possibility, however, is that they want to argue that we don't automatically have the right to make such copies of purchased CDs, but that they will grant us limited rights to do so. Or maybe they just aren't thinking.

  • by MaestroSartori (146297) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:05AM (#14731681) Homepage
    ...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.
  • by lheal (86013) <lheal1999 AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:05AM (#14731687) Journal
    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.

  • by MartinG (52587) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:08AM (#14731708) Homepage Journal
    I have been buying CDs and ripping them to play on my iRiver. I may as well just download them instead of buying in future if its just as illegal.
  • What are we buying? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plumby (179557) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:11AM (#14731730)
    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, (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:11AM (#14731731) Homepage

    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

  • Affordable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by keyne9 (567528) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:12AM (#14731733)
    "Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."


    Let's see here.

    Original CD price: $16.99
    Backup CD price: $0.30

    Any specific reason I should be required to pay approximately fifty-six times more money to replace a scratched/mutilated CD?
  • by cob666 (656740) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:14AM (#14731740) Homepage
    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.
  • by HaloZero (610207) <protodeka.gmail@com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:14AM (#14731746) Homepage
    ...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...
  • Media levy .... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:21AM (#14731797) Homepage
    Well, here in Canada, a media levy has been charged on recordable media -- ostensibly to compensate the artists for 'stealing' their music. The only music I have has been purchased legally -- I have every single original CD. Somehow I doubt under their funding formulas any of the artists I listen to are actually being compensated under this levy. It probably all goes to the big mega acts; the smaller artists and the ones who have been long dead are probably ignored from this formula.

    The only things I burn to disk are data, and mixed CDs for playing in my car. As far as I'm concerned, I've never stolen anything from them, and they're the ones stealing me by charging me this levy under the assumption I must be comitting theft.

    They will never convince me that I don't have right of first sale on my CDs, and they will never convince me that I can't buy a CD and then listen to it on whatever device I wish to.

    Someone really needs to stop this absurdity with the recording industries.
  • Contradictions... (Score:5, Informative)

    by morgdx (688154) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:25AM (#14731831) Homepage

    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]

  • This is too much... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ursabear (818651) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:28AM (#14731858) Homepage Journal
    [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.
  • by Luscious868 (679143) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:29AM (#14731870)
    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.

  • by TangoCharlie (113383) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:32AM (#14731883) Homepage Journal
    Today the Record Industry of Ameria (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) released a joint statement regarding the fair use of Music CDs and Movie DVDs. It states that listening to music CDs using CD players was immoral, illegal and said that people who listen to music are thevies and criminals. Similarly, people to buy motion picture DVDs and the proceed to what them are scum and should be sent to Guantanimo with all the other enemies of the state. The two organisations provide a helpful list of those activities which are considered acceptable and those that are not.

    Acceptable
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Buying CDs and DVDs.

    Not Acceptable
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Copying (read pirating) music CDs to MP3 players (especially those f**king iPods!)
    Copying (read pirating) music CDs and movie DVDs to audio and/or video tape.
    Lending music CDs and DVD movies to your friends.
    Listening to CDs.
    Whatching DVD movies.
    Downloading divx movies from Limewire.
    Buying pirated CDs/DVDs.

    The RIAA and the MPAA state that all these unacceptable actions help crime and support terrorist organisations such as Al-Queda and must be banned, and the perpiTRAITORS should be shot (preferably by Dick Cheney!)
  • by Britz (170620) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:37AM (#14731907) Homepage
    Either they sell you a license and you can loose your copy but still get it back, because you own a license, not a copy.

    Or you buy a CD as a "thing" and can do whatever you feel with it, as long as you don't sell the content to someone else.

    At least that is how it should be and how it used to be in Germany, but we are working to get to where the US law is now. And we are pickung up speed.
  • by athlon02 (201713) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:40AM (#14731929)
    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!
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:50AM (#14732009) Homepage
    ...what MSFT has already done. RIAA is trying to implment the same type system for music that MSFT was able to successfully employ for software. They're angling for product activation. Where you activate your music content before it will play on a device.

    Why is that so far fetched? You went along with it for software and they're using the same basic talking points. It'll cut down on piracy and everyone will enjoy lower prices on music. And if you believe that I have a bridge in San Francisco you can buy cheap. MSFT increased their prices in the wake of product activation, so will the music industry.

    And while RIAA's running the propaganda campaign in the media they're quietly sinking millions into lobbying efforts to get the few in Congress they don't already own, like Orin Hatch, to go along with what they want.

    You put up with it in software, you voted for the people selling you out to corporate lobbyists. I realize this will be an unpopular point, but you get what you tolerate.

  • Last straw for me. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moultano (714440) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:58AM (#14732082)
    I'm never buying a piece of music from the RIAA again. I'm not going to give money to companies that use it to assault my rights in court.

    Vote with your dollars people.
  • Fair vs. Fair (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:05AM (#14732157)
    I'm a fairly fair person. Treat me fairly, I treat you fairly.

    Is it fair to prevent me from enjoying my right of "fair use" by installing copy protection mechanisms that keep me from doing what I legally could do, but can't because I may not circumvent copyright protections?

    Is it fair to still charge a "copyright fee" on CD-Rs that I can ONLY use for writing content that I do have the copyright for anymore because of the forementioned copy protection mechanisms?

    Is it fair to install rootkits on my computer, without asking or at least informing me, without giving me the ability to get rid of them even if I cease using the product it came with?

    Is it fair to dictate what devices I can use to play the music I license?

    Is it fair to prevent me from copying content I do have the copyright of because the same copying mechanism could be used to copy content belonging to someone else?

    Is it fair to put pressure on politicians to tip the balance between producers and consumers more and more in the producers favor?

    Is it fair to assume that I don't give a rat's rear what someone treating me like that considers "fair"?

    Which question do you think would deserve a "yes" as an answer?
  • by yeremein (678037) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:11AM (#14732213)
    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]
  • by swschrad (312009) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:31AM (#14732401) Homepage Journal
    I have a bunch of music I treasure that is NOT availiable on CD, and is NOT readily availiable, or availiable at all, on CD any more. RIAA is just so full of crap that they rot the floor behind them wherever they go.
  • Replacement CDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:35AM (#14732443)
    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.
  • by Kcowolf (954974) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:49AM (#14732577)
    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)

  • Their Way (Score:4, Funny)

    by Renraku (518261) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:11AM (#14732786) Homepage
    If they had their way, CDs would be copy protected and require a CD key to play (a la Windows or PC game keys), would require an internet or modem connection to phone home on each play (like Steam), and would occasionally be completely unavailable to play due to server problems..

    They would completely have no problem with forcing this upon the customer. When confronted, they would shrug and say that it allows them to serve their customers better. By the way, if you buy the 'Special Edition' CD, its authorizations are listed on a different server that doesn't go down quite as often.

    And if you play the CD in another computer, the key is invalidated and you must purchase a new one.
  • by GuyverDH (232921) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:17AM (#14732859)
    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.
  • by jasonditz (597385) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:19AM (#14732891) Homepage
    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?

  • Fuck the RIAA (Score:4, Informative)

    by alfredo (18243) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:33AM (#14733034)
    I can appreciate some restrictions on use of copyright material, but they want too much control over products we pay inflated prices for. They say we are hurting the artist, but what really hurts the artist are the draconian and deceptive contracts the artists have to work under. You can have a Platinum recording and end up in debt to the record company because they shift the financial risks to the artist and assume none for themselves. Many of your favorite artist barely make a living wage even though they are generating millions for their labels.

    Ask Toni Braxton. She made millions for her record company and ended up being in debt to her label.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...