Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use'

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Feb 16, 2006 08:53 AM
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.""
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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?
      • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nagora (177841) on Thursday February 16 2006, @09:07AM (#14731701)
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xymor (943922) on Thursday February 16 2006, @09:23AM (#14731811)
        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).
  • 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 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.

  • 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?
  • 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 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"?
  • What rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miros (734652) * on Thursday February 16 2006, @09:02AM (#14731657) Homepage
    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 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 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.
  • 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? (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

  • 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.
  • ...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...
    • by Miros (734652) * on Thursday February 16 2006, @09:06AM (#14731689) Homepage
      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.