Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Agent00Wang ( 146185 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:59AM (#14731637) Homepage
    It seems to me that the arguement in the article is just further incentive to not buy CDs. Even if you have a DRM protected file that you've downloaded, you can still play it on your portable device, in your car (through an audio input), or just about anywhere else. With a CD, you are essentially limited to only playing it in a CD player. For the majority of consumers (particularly the biggest target market, Gen-Y), not a very good deal.
  • 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)
    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.
  • Big Money (Score:1, Insightful)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:02AM (#14731658) Homepage Journal
    And, in a world where the top few decision makes get most of the money and it's a lot of money they will keep pushing it and trying to beat down the voice of the majority.
  • Affordable (Score:2, Insightful)

    by maniac/dev/null ( 170211 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:02AM (#14731662) Homepage
    Metallica's Black Album - $18.98. [samgoody.com]
    How affordable.
  • 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 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.
  • Music CD-Rs? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ect5150 ( 700619 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:05AM (#14731684) Journal

    Am I missing something here? Don't the RIAA get a cut from the music variety of CD-Rs (the kind that only work in the settop boxes, not PC burners? What are those for then? Those were sold to use as a way to make custom CDs by taking tracks from discs you already owned and mixing a perfect CD for yourself. Now, this isn't allowed? They need to get their arguments straight.

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


  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 HaloZero ( 610207 ) <protodeka@nospaM.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...
  • 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 jesterpilot ( 906386 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:16AM (#14731755) Homepage
    So, would the honorable representant of the RIAA please explain me where i can get copies of albums by the Cranes [starblood.org] and other musicians who were dumped by record companies for making music which was not commercial enough?
  • by James McGuigan ( 852772 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:17AM (#14731763) Homepage
    What they are really saying is that they don't want to be relagated to the role of ISP, or even "content" provider - as these are fields that are becoming too comoditized and thus not profitable.

    What they want to be is end to end "entertainment solution" providers, marketing a very specific "solution" for you entertainment needs, that can be specially tailored and marketed to your demographic defined needs. Unless they can control their product from end to end without any interference, redirection or alteration on the consumers end. Otherwise they cannot ensure that you obtain the full enjoyment of the product and maintain their marketing image.

    A music CD is only meant to be played in a genuine, authorized and trusted music CD player. If you want to play the music on an iPod, then you must purchase the iPod comptable iTunes version of the song which is available at a reasonable price.

    If you happen to want to access your content on a Linux PC, then you will have to wait until Linux users become a profitable and mainstream demographic that is willing to accept our Digital Rights Management software.
  • by Rev Wally ( 814101 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:18AM (#14731778) Homepage
    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 Snarfangel ( 203258 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:18AM (#14731781) Homepage
    Actually, that was me, but when I hit submit the screen went blank, and when I refreshed the Slashdot page it didn't show up, so I retyped the comment under my user name rather than AC. Since I own the copyright, I'm free to copy it to another location, albeit accidentally. :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:19AM (#14731786)
    as it is to download that track from Kazaa then why bother buy the CD?
  • 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!
  • 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).
  • direct attack (Score:2, Insightful)

    by saboola ( 655522 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:24AM (#14731821)
    direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights

    And I am experiencing a direct attack on my ability to enjoy my music. This is the exact reason I have stopped buying music in the first place.
  • by bloodredsun ( 826017 ) <martin@NospAM.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 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 kneeslasher ( 878676 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:30AM (#14731876) Homepage
    Something I never understood:

    i) If one is buying the *rights* to the data when one buys a CD, doesn't that mean that if one breaks/scratches the CD, one should be able to ask the store for another copy at the cost of the media since the data has already been "bought"?

    ii) If one is buying the CD as an object similar to how one buys a car, then surely what the hell one does with it is nobody's business, even if one makes a million copies and seels them. After all, Ford cannot sue you for customising your car so that it runs on air or water and telling others how to do the same.

    Now it seems to me that record companies want to have it both ways. Either (i) is true. Or (ii) is. Both cannot be. And it seems to me that if it came to the crunch, most companies would choose (i) since it protects the business model. Fair enough. But has anybody ever gotten a replacement CD for the cost of a CDR? No? Didn't think so...

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

    It is exactly wanton comments like this which, I am sure give many downloaders a warm glow and pleasurable feeling whenever they download a song. Indeed, they probably feel it a duty after hearing this type of thing. It is exemplary of the record companies wanting both (i) and (ii) leaving the customer with nothing.

    And those who are happy about buying DRM/iTunes only tracks are selling themselves short. CDs are in every way superior since they allow (i) and leave (ii) up to your own conscience. DRM music does not allow (ii) and only supports a limited form of (i). Not to mention the cost advantage.

    To throw more fat into the fire, if (i) is true, then one should be able to "sell" the spare tracks on the CD which one doesn't like?

  • 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.


    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 trezor ( 555230 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:34AM (#14731891) Homepage

    No they cant. Noone has ever heard the word "licence", no one has ever been verbally informed of conditions under wich the CD is bought, noone has ever been asked to sign a paper with the text "licence" on it when buying a CD. Noone. Never.

    This licence bullshit is just that: namley bullshit. Just because the cokeheads at the RIAA main office would want it to not to be so, and has repeated the same bullshit for a few years now, doesn't make the bullshit real. Stop spreading fud.

    Oh. And you're a tool. Now kindly fuck off.

    Karma to burn. blah blah.

  • by Britz ( 170620 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:37AM (#14731907)
    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 elmegil ( 12001 ) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:37AM (#14731909) Homepage Journal
    Exactly. $18US for the average album is NOT "affordable prices". I already re-bought a lot of my collection from vinyl to CD an I refuse to be gigged again.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmv ( 93421 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:39AM (#14731922) Homepage
    It's actually the opposite. With a CD, you can do whatever you like in terms of portable player (no matter what the RIAA wants you to believe). With DRM-protected music, you'll end up buying the same music several times, which is *exactly* what the RIAA wants. That's probably the only way they can sustain your business. If you don't produce anything new, your only hope is to keep selling the old stuff.
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moultano ( 714440 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:39AM (#14731923)
    Maybe stop giving them our dollars?
  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:43AM (#14731949) Journal
    You clearly don't have a three year old in your house.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by montyzooooma ( 853414 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:45AM (#14731973)
    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.
  • 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 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.

  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:51AM (#14732020) Journal
    I'm going to say that you are buying a "single format license to a copyrighted work, which is embodied as a physycal artifact, the destruction of which terminates your license. The pyhsical nature of the medium affords you certain limited rights (first-sale doctrine), but the content contained therein must remain, or an infringing action has occured."

    Now, you're bull-shit-o-meter should be registering pretty high right now, but I'm guessing that's what the RIAA would claim. The RIAA is claiming that the replacement cost is so low that there should be no need to back up the media.

  • by dogolopee ( 886299 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:52AM (#14732036)
    If you only buy the rights, the nhow cna music stores buy used CDs? Are they buying the licence from you or is it considered an illegal sale? Also why couldn't msic companies simply include mp3 versions of their songs on the dic. Then they could have the songs already covered under something like Apple's Fairplay oe some other copy limiting drm.
  • 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.
  • Matter of consent? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:59AM (#14732089)
    So lemme get this straight.

    The RIAA says if you buy a CD changing format's isn't fair use, so no digital media players?

    And Apple says it's fine to burn a few copies of the downloads you legally purchase?

    This seems more a matter of consent from the copyright holders. Is the RIAA all of a sudden stating that all artists they represent refuse consent?
  • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:00AM (#14732103)
    Generally you can get exchange for defective within 30-90 days on CD's and DVD's. That's not the point. CD's and DVD are fragile media, and are easily damaged (as any parent with children understands all too well. My 4 year old once moved her Little-Tykes table in from another room and used it to get at her "circles" which were stored out of reach. There goes the widescreen version of "Finding Nemo.")

    Backups are DEFINATELY fair use and should be protected be law, regardless of what the Recording Industry Asshole's of America think.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jocknerd ( 29758 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:03AM (#14732138)
    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.
  • Re:No CDs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:04AM (#14732148) 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."

    Gee...that couldn't be at all what they want...could it now? Remember, they're not in the business of selling CDs, they're in the business of selling music...over and over again on as many different forms of media as possible. I'm sure they'd love for the CD to become out-dated so they can cram a much more 'secure' format down our throats. And also remember that they make more money and have more control with online downloads.

  • 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 Wardie ( 920532 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:08AM (#14732184)
    I really do think the age of the record company is coming to an end, I would think in 10 years time the concept of buying a small disk with music on it will seem a little bizzare. Musicians will suddenly realise that publishing an album purely on the net means a record company is redundant and thus more $$$ directly for them. I think sites like iTunes will eventually turn into music brokers, dealing directly with the artists. For the bigger artists, promotional activities will just be down to a marketing company, not a record company as such. Anyway, thats my 2 cents, what do i know....
  • by aka_big_wurm ( 757512 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:10AM (#14732204) Homepage
    People riping CD's are not the ones out there shairing music.

    They want to sell CD's but more and more people are using MP3 players. Some people like to still have the disk but rip to MP3. Make that illeagle and sales go down even more.

    My current anwser allofmp3.com
  • Re:No CDs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Blue ( 63477 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:13AM (#14732231)
    Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs.

    You say that like the RIAA would think it's a bad thing. I know someone who works on some of the infrastructure issues with iTunes, and he tells me that Apple makes extremely little money off an iTunes sale. Most of the purchase price goes to the record label and RIAA. So they get money coming in, they don't have to worry about physical distribution or even paying for the electronic distribution infrastructure, and the music is locked up in a DRM format so you can't even do things like buy "used music" any more. Just sit back and rake in money. And they can even complain that CD sales are down, so they must be being cheated -- sniff, sniff... pooor widdle RIAA.

    I'd bet the RIAA would love it if you didn't buy CDs any more.

  • by Steve525 ( 236741 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:20AM (#14732285)
    ... 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.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:20AM (#14732287) Journal
    All very true, but you're preaching to the converted.

    Instead tell your (if you are American) government to stop the RIAA riding roughshod all over you in the name of profit. Or do the equivalent in your area of the world.

    And start supporting unencumbered music not sold by RIAA members, and give artists money by seeing them live.
  • Both culpable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:25AM (#14732324) Journal
    You are so right, my rights-oppressed friend. But *AAs are culpable for buying the laws; Congress is culpable for selling them.

    Both should be punished severely, and I'm not talking swatted across the bare backside by Mistress Trish in her beautiful leather attire, either. I'm talking Smite.

    I hate the business of politics.
  • by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:26AM (#14732341)
    Quoth the summary:

    "...replacements are readily available at affordable prices..."

    In other words, because the RIAA thinks CD prices are "affordable," consumers should be forced to repurchase music, thereby further adding to the industry's profits, instead of being able to protect and preserve the investment the consumer made by making backup copies for personal use. This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

    When you buy a piece of real estate, contrary to popular belief, you are not buying the actual land - you are buying a bundle of rights to use the land. Your ownership of that bundle of rights is evidenced by a deed. If you lose the physical deed, you don't have to buy the real estate again - you GET A COPY of the deed from the local registry of deeds. Here, when a consumer has damaged media, the consumer, in my humble opinion as an intellectual property lawyer, HAS EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE TO SIMPLY REPLACE THE MEDIA WITH A BACKUP COPY.

    In fact, I would go so far as to take the position that forcing consumers to repurchase music is a misuse of the copyright associated with the piece of music involved.

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:36AM (#14732450) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toph42 ( 160730 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:43AM (#14732524) Homepage
    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.
  • by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:44AM (#14732533)
    Let's perface this with the good old IANAL. You are buying the disk. You can use it any way you see fit; make backups, copy it to your computer, play it on your Linux-running toaster, whatever. The only two limits are:

    a) You cannot distribute it to others. Public performance, giving copies to friends and family, uploading it on the Interweb etc are out.

    b) You cannot break eny encryption or bypass any protection measures on the CD. In practice this means any use of the CD can be prevented. It would be perfectly fine for the music industry to sell CDs ROT-13 encrypted without providing any way to listening to them. Except:

    c) Selling you a CD that you cannot use in the way you expect to be able to use it is fraud. Any limitations not normally present on CDs must be reasonably communicated to you before you make the decision to buy the CD.

    In essence b) is being used to expand the copyright protection given by a), testing the limits of c). In addition, RIAA are lobbying to expand a).
  • by fir5t psot! ( 934628 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:51AM (#14732589)
    There is currently an antitrust suit filed against Apple alleging that Apple has monopolized the markets for online music distribution and for portable mp3 players by making songs downloaded from iTMS only compatible with iPod. If the RIAA's Fair Use argument is upheld, then Apple's defenses in its antitrust litigation would be significantly narrowed. Without the ability to rip CDs to use on the iPod, the iTMS' market share is greatly increased. Thus, the RIAA's position is well-timed to injure Apple. Maybe this is an unintended result by RIAA, though. I can't see why the RIAA would want Apple to have to do away with its DRM.
  • by lennart78 ( 515598 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:51AM (#14732595)
    This is allready happening. Various 'aggregators' allow musicians and/or indie labels to publish music on iTunes and Rhapsody, against a hefty sum that is. Tunecore (http://www.tunecore.com/ [tunecore.com]) offers the same, against much smaller costs.

    Record companies had 3 monopolies which allowed them to firmly control the recording industry:
    * To record an album you need a studio, which is expensive. Record companies paid band to use studios, tying the bands to the record company.
    * To publish an album, you need to put it on CD (or LP), and get it out to record stores (distribution). Both of these activities come with huge expenses upfront.
    * Finally, you need to promote and plug a band, which requires a network of people you know.

    Nowadays, as a musician, I can record decent quality productions at home with the aid of a computer, at a fraction of the costs it would take if I were to do it in a studio. Distribution can take place via the Internet, (e.g. Tunecore), and for promotion/plugging, web2.0 like community networks and a well designed website can get you somewhere.

    Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.
  • by defile39 ( 592628 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:53AM (#14732616)
    Sadly, this is exactly what the RIAA wants us to do . . . buy it again. There is (obviously) a market for digital (mp3, mp4, etc) music copies. By ripping CDs, even for our own personal use and enjoyment, we are affecting the market for digital music. Granted, charging people for the digital copy as well as the physical copy seems highly dubious, ripping, or digitally backing up our music might not be a fair use. Take a look at this Stanford site http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/9-a.html [stanford.edu] describing the nature of fair use. As a person who regularly rips CDs for personal enjoyment on my ipod, I sure something . . . a court decision, legislation . . . ensures we don't have to pay twice. What a sad world that would be . . .
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:02AM (#14732691) Homepage Journal
    "With a CD, you are essentially limited to only playing it in a CD player. For the majority of consumers (particularly the biggest target market, Gen-Y), not a very good deal."

    Does no one any longer care about the loss of fidelity? I mean sure, a lossy format copy of music is great for a portable player in a gym or even in a car, a couple of the worst possible listening environments.

    but, for home use...would you not rather have the best possible sound in your better listening environment? I don't mean you have to spend tons of dollars on super high end audio, but, at least maximize the sound for your enviroment?

    On a slightly different note, I do like fairly high end stuff...but, it isn't like I built my system overnight. I've worked, saved and bought and replaced componets over many years. Do people just not know or care what really good sound reproduction is?

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by soupdevil ( 587476 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:04AM (#14732713)
    Much of the music on Emusic is from RIAA labels. They're still taking your money.
  • Yup... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:09AM (#14732761) Homepage Journal
    They're gearing up to do their best legally and technically to kill the secondhand CD market. I suspect that a lot of people now buy a CD, rip it and then sell it to a secondhand CD dealer. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's a lot safer than pulling your music off the Internet (No lawsuits) and cuts the RIAA out of all sales except for the first one for any given CD in that system.

    If you don't like it, write your local Congressman, point him at this story and tell him that you like your ipod and copyright issues are high on your priority list when you're considering who to vote for in the next election. Also don't buy CDs that benefit the RIAA. Go browse the International section of your local music store. Chances are you can find a lot of independent artists in there whose music is new and interesting and which cost half to a quarter what the latest RIAA produced crap does.

  • Re:What about... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Merenth ( 935752 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:14AM (#14732823)
    People have been unofficially boycotting music companies for years because the product sucks, hence the declining profits.

    Music user: I heard that new song by and it totally sucks, no way I'm wasting money on that.

    RIAA: People aren't buying this new CD that everyone hates.
    They must be pirating copies, because they bought the last one that everyone loved.

    Boycotting only works if the people being boycotted don't live in a fantasy world.

  • Readily available? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:17AM (#14732864)

    Hah! I have a ton of CDs that are no longer "in print". I've made copies to protect my investment since RIAA members no longer see enough profit to continue making these older CDs available to me any more.

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freedom_india ( 780002 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:19AM (#14732889) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maraist ( 68387 ) * <michael.maraistN ... gmail.n0spam.com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:21AM (#14732904) Homepage
    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.

    Right idea, wrong direction.

    It isn't that the music is selling the iPod, the iPod is selling the music. Apple is doing just fine w/ the iPod, DRM or not.. BUT, the clever part is that by having the iTunes player exclusively operate w/ their store-front, they have verticle integration. Similar to an MS platform. They can leverage one revenue stream against another.

    If apple didn't have DRM in two forms, one that an iPod player is tied to a PC, and that iTunes is tied to the player + PC, then it would be easy for someone to use non-iTunes software, thereby breaking the vertical integration.

    iTunes may or may not be lucrative (relative to profits from the iPod). But it's a stable platform of lock-in. Once you have $50 worth of iTunes (call it $25 of profit; less than the likely $100 of profit for a high-end iPod), then a person will be hesitant to throw all that away by moving to another PC software package (which doesn't support the DRM).

    Throw in gift certificates / parental allowances for music purchases etc, and your invested interest grows and grows until lockin is inevetable.

    Their store-front (visa v iTunes player) is like the AOL desktop of the 90's or IE/firefox toolbar or the google-task bar or of course the immensely lucrative stock windows desktop. It's real-estate as in central manhattan.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:23AM (#14732933)
    The only problem with a massive CD boycot by the general public is that any drop in CD sales (whether due to a decline in the economy, a slow year for artists, or any other cause) is immediately blamed on some form of piracy/file sharing. Since the piracy and file sharing can only be stopped by controling our right (under fair use) to create copies of our media, the RIAA can actually use any drop in sales to further support their cause. An organized boycot may stand more of a chance because it is then well-documented that CDs aren't selling because we aren't consuming media content, not because we're finding it somewhere for free.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:30AM (#14733006)
    What planet are you living on? Why should we roll over for the utter crap they are trying to force on us? I knew this tripe was on it's way even before the cuecat debacle--i.e. manufactuers forcing consumers to do what *they* would have you do with property *YOU* purchased and legally own. Property rights are eroding faster then I ever suspected though, even back then...

    So you are saying we should give up CD-quality audio and media-shifting fair-use rights in favor of purchasing DRM encumbered, LOWER QUALITY files--just because the seller is "allowing" us to do what we're already entitled under fair use to do?

    No wonder property rights are going out the window with attitudes like that!

    When your city decides to bulldoze your house so they can put in a strip mall and call it justified under "eminent domain"; and you start to wonder in 'shock & awe' how such a thing could have ever been called 'legal', just remember how you gave up your rights a little at a time to the coporations.
  • by J05H ( 5625 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:39AM (#14733113) Homepage
    when you pry it from cold, dead fingers, Jack. In a world where the best music is on used, imported $30 CDs, you're frickin' right that I'm going MP3s every one of them. You want to steal my VCR, too?
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunkirk ( 238653 ) <david.davidkrider@com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:41AM (#14733139) Homepage
    No, no. That's the entire point of DRM. Piracy is a straw man. What person, having bought an iPod, and collected some music tracks, is going to say, screw it, I'm throwing away this investment, and going with some other service? No, they want to be able to access their whole collection on whatever device they have. That means they stay with an iPod, and with iTunes. It's classic Microsoftian tactics. DRM keeps people locked in APPLE'S DRM-ed vertical stack. That's EVERYONE'S strategy with DRM.
  • by Nemi ( 627009 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @11:45AM (#14733195)
    iTunes ripped CDs have zero DRM in them. nothing. nada. iTunes *downloaded* tunes do.

    How many conversions does the music have to go through for this? If you want the file in a non-drm format you have to, at the very least, go from a lossy AAC->CD->lossy mp3. Just like with a jpeg image, the more times you save it in a lossy format, the lower quality it becomes. One conversion from lossless to lossy (the conversion to AAC in this case) is the max you should expect, imho. Anything more to get it to a non-drm lossy is going to cost you, so to speak.

    All the more reason to buy in a lossless CD format, imo. This way you can convert to any lossy format you want (AAC, MP3, OGG) multiple times with the least amount of degradation.

  • by Lazarian ( 906722 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:02PM (#14733416)
    This brings up something that's been puzzling me for a while. When recordable CD technologies were first starting to come out, one of the major benefits that was being touted was the longevity of the media. When Tandy Corporation first introduced their THOR CD technology, it supposedly had a lifetime of decades, and it was an immature technology at the time. I remember reading articles about early CD based storage systems that actually boasted a guarenteed lifetime of a hundred years or more. (I don't recall the manufacturers, and it could possibly have been a more unusual system, like magneto-optical.)

    Now we have CD rot and all other sorts of failure modes. It would be unwise nowadays to have anything less than two backups on CD or DVD for important data, and it would be smart to check the integrity of the backups on a regular basis and reburn them as necessary.

    Perhaps it's just cheap mass production and poor quality control. Premium quality media would stand up better, but it still seems that, at least to me, most CD and DVD recording media is almost engineered to fail.
  • by jocknerd ( 29758 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:02PM (#14733417)
    Dude, I never said anything about CD's costing less than iTMS music. But now that you bring it up, many times new CD's do, in fact, cost less. And forget about buying their videos. A lot of the videos cost more than the equivalent DVD's. For instance, Schoolhouse Rocks just got released. But only half of them. At $2 each, it will cost you more to download the videos from iTMS than purchase the DVD which contains all 27 videos I believe. And I think there are only 11 videos for sale on iTMS. And its a lower quality as well from iTMS.

    Sure, I can back up the music I purchase from iTMS. And I can burn it to a CD. But it is now a lower quality than what I purchased which is already a lower quality than what I could get from a CD. Doesn't matter if I can detect it or not. The fact is, its a lower quality.

    There are ONLY two reasons to purchase from iTMS rather than buying a CD:

    1. Buying individual songs
    2. Convenience
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:11PM (#14733517)
    They can't have it both ways.

    If they get the right laws passed, sure they can.

  • by AeroIllini ( 726211 ) <aeroillini@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:32PM (#14733761)
    Basically, there is no more need for a record company. Their days are over, and the general public should realise that there are plenty possibilities to make do without them.

    While I agree with your sentiment, that record companies in their current form are now obsolete, I would have to say that the days of the record companies in general are not over yet. However, their purpose and place in this business is quickly changing.

    Sure, you can do all that stuff yourself, recording on your home PC, publishing online, marketing through deli.cio.us or whoever. But that just gets you "good enough." In order to get a GREAT product, you really should use a professional recording studio with extremely high-end microphones, a professionally trained producer, and marketers who actually went to marketing school. All of that stuff is expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars, and that's where the record company comes in.

    The record company should really be thought of as a venture capital firm for musicians. They front some money to the artist to pay for all the recording, producing, distribution, and marketing fees, and then the artist gives them a percentage of their earnings from that album in return. In other areas of venture capitalism, the risk is shared by both parties, the VC firm and the startup. If the idea is a flop, they BOTH lose money. However, in the last 30 years or so, the record companies have gotten so powerful that their cut of earnings has steadily gone up, and they started adding clauses about the band having to pay back all that up-front cost as well, with interest, out of their cut. The net result is that the record companies will sign just about anybody, because the deal is so one-sided that the band will go broke and declare bankruptcy long before the record companies ever lose money. They just sit back and get rich off other people's music, and this worked because they were the only game in town. It was either them or printing flyers and posting them on street corners.

    The next generation of record companies (and I am fairly sure a new generation is coming) will succeed because they will play nice. The deals they cut with the artists will be fair to both parties, the IP rights will be shared, and everyone will get rich if the band succeeds. When the risk is shared like that, there is pressure on the record company to only sign good bands that will be good long-term investments. The flavor-of-the-month approach only works when there's no risk to the record company, since there are 3 flops for every superstar. Signing bands with appeal AND musical talent is a long-term investment: the band will continue to grow and create more great music, develop a loyal following of fans, and be very visible. Marketers call that "building a brand"; musicians call it "fandom". Either way you look at it, it's good business: the record company has performers and albums they are proud of, the fans get better music on average, the musicians actually make money, and everyone gets to keep their soul. Good times.
  • Re:Their Way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robertjw ( 728654 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:44PM (#14733886) Homepage
    CDs would be copy protected and require a CD key to play (a la Windows or PC game keys)

    Unfortunately, they don't seem to be aware that the methods you mention are are largely ineffective. It's typically a matter of days from the release of a game before the thing is cracked and downloadable.

    would require an internet or modem connection to phone home on each play (like Steam)

    Might be a bit hard to play in the car.

    What the RIAA wants is for things to go back to the way they used to be. No Internet, no Satellite radio, no iPods, no iTunes. They see their revenue model slowly but surely slipping away and they can't do anything about it, so they flail around and make a lot of noise. This whole article is just posturing. What are they going to do? Start suing people that rip CDs they've purchased? Suing downloaders was bad, going after your customers that actually PAID for the CD - doesn't seem smart to me.

    The real answer for all of us here is to not buy or listen to RIAA music. There are thousands, maybe millions of independant artists out there on the web. Go out and support these people. Buy their songs of iTunes, or better yet, buy the CDs directly from their website. Don't know any indie music? Try listening to some podcasts for some ideas. The Association of Music Podcasting [musicpodcasting.org] has a large list of music podcasts. Personally I think the Eclectic Mix [eclecticmix.com] has a good selection of different music and Coverville [coverville.com] is a great podcast featuring many indpendent artists.

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by philipgar ( 595691 ) <{ude.hgihel} {ta} {2gcp}> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:46PM (#14733900) Homepage
    "To hell with the greedy bastards. Once or twice at the trough was more than enough -- no more."

    In that case stop driving a car, stop using the phone, stop using the internet, stop watching tv, stop using electricity, stop using heat, hell pretty much stop using just about everything you have.

    By the /. definition, every company is a greedy bastard. Some companies are just greedier than others. What the music industry is trying to do is what most every company is try or has done already. Find a way for the government to declare that they have a right to a profit regardless. It's amusing how people will say these greedy companies are the reason capitalism will fail. The failure isn't capitalism, but rather our entitlement government that allows laws to be passed that help one group out at the expense of others.

    That being said if the government rules that ripping cds is illegal, I'll take one of two options: either stop buying cds altogether (and download them) because if I'm going to have to break the law anyhow, I might as well do it for free, or two continue buying cds and ripping them. Of course I doubt the courts would rule on the side of the *AA on something like this, as this is a classic part of the copyright law.

  • Bypass the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Vejadu ( 955008 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @12:57PM (#14734035)
    You can continue to buy CDs, just seek out artists that are not part of RIAA labels. Support real musicians, not the mass-market garbage that's force-fed to us through corporate radio and MTV.
  • by Panfist ( 639436 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:11PM (#14734814)
    I have no idea how you got rated a 5 interesting. Music downloaded from iTMS comes in 128kbps AAC. If you burn it onto a CD, it gets upconverted into a CD quality wave, but the information that was lost when it was originally compressed to 128kbps AAC doesn't magically reappear. All you have is a huge, lossy wave file. If you then try to re-rip it to whatever format you want (mp3, ogg, whatever), you're applying lossy compression algorithms to a file that already sounds worse than CD quality. The end product sounds like you're listening to it from a radio that's submerged in a bathtub.
  • by rizzo420 ( 136707 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:23PM (#14734922) Homepage Journal
    back in the day, album releases were about more than just the music. the album art was a big thing. look at albums by pink floyd and the beatles (sgt pepper). the liner notes were also big and on occasion contained extras (think beatles white ablum). of course this was when they were vinyl. however, they can do the same thing with cd's.

    that's part of the reason i buy cd's. the other part is because if they're DRM free, they're probably the most open and highest quality format to get music in these days (dvd-a isn't widely available enough for me).
  • Broken Media (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:34PM (#14735037) Homepage Journal
    If I'm just licensing *content*, why isn't the replacement CD free? If I'm purchasing media too, then i can make backups as i see fit.

    If im licensing content, why is it wrong for me to listen to my purchased content on my ipod? I can only listen to one copy at a time.

    What a scam... Next they will say listening to my content more than once isnt 'fair use' either.

  • by phiwum ( 319633 ) <jesse@phiwumbda.org> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @03:00PM (#14735282) Homepage
    The IP value of a CD (performer + composer + producer) is about $5...

    Fascinating. Now, how did you calculate that?
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TomRitchford ( 177931 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @03:11PM (#14735432) Homepage
    "In that case stop driving a car, stop using the phone, stop using the internet, stop watching tv, stop using electricity, stop using heat, hell pretty much stop using just about everything you have.

    "By the /. definition, every company is a greedy bastard."

    What poor reasoning. "Because no company is perfect, it's pointless to criticize any of them." This is particularly stupid in this situation, where we do all have a perfectly good mechanism to bypass the record companies for the most part (p2p or just ripping your friend's CDs).
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @03:28PM (#14735657)
    What the hell are you talking about?

    Car: I go to Honda and give them $20k or so, and they give me a nice car that's extremely reliable and fuel efficient. They also honor their warranty and repair the car when there's a problem during the first 5 years. The car works great for 10-15 years. What's the problem here? There's no blatant greediness; just a good product for a reasonable price.

    Internet: I pay $50 per month for my cable modem service, and it works just as advertised. The price hasn't changed in two years, and they haven't been trying to force me into paying more money for the same thing (yet). Just another simple business transaction.

    Electricity: Same as cable. I pay x cents per kilowatt-hour. The power stays on, I haven't had any brownouts or blackouts in 5 years since I moved here. What's the problem? This isn't greed, it's simple business. Provide a good service for a fair price.

    CDs: Buy a CD, and find out it isn't really a true CD, and doesn't play correctly. Try to return it and they won't accept it. Buy a normal CD and they tell you that the content isn't really yours, you can't resell it, but you can't use it the way you want either (on your iPod). So is it licensed or not? Neither; it's whatever way they'll make more money, even though this isn't actually backed up by any laws. This is greed, plain and simple, and it's evil.

    There's honest ways to earn money, and there's dishonest ways of taking money. The music industry is doing the latter.
  • by Cl1mh4224rd ( 265427 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @03:38PM (#14735761)
    . . .they don't come with reference materials like images, track listings, artist's notes, etc.
    How many real CDs come with anything more than half-assed attempt at these anyway? Considering the crushing heel of the RIAA, those incentives have lost their appeal for many people I imagine.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spirality ( 188417 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @04:14PM (#14736146) Homepage
    Here here. We're supposed to abhor a monopoly. Copyright and Patents grant a monopoly for a given time. We tolerate that because it is useful, but copyrights and patents are not an end in and of themselves.

    It suprises the hell out of me that something like Star Wars or the Beatles, things that have become part and parcel of the culture, are owned at all at this point. After something becomes that wildly successful it no longer needs monopoly protection.
  • Re:Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IAmTheDave ( 746256 ) <basenamedave-sd&yahoo,com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @05:37PM (#14736919) Homepage Journal
    And if that extra $0.51 per track is a major obstical to you, you might want to spend more time on education and job hunting that listening to tunes.

    That's not cool man. I make a good salary as a developer, and an extra $.51 on the 14k or so tracks I own would equal a cool - and quite cost prohibitive - $7k.

  • Re:Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mark Hood ( 1630 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:08PM (#14737748) Homepage
    f 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.

    Of course they can, you just have to think like they do. Luckily I had the decency bypass operation, so I'll clue you in.

    You're buying the RIGHT to listen to the music, not the ABILITY. So when your CD gets scratched, stolen, chewed up by the dog, you are still just as ENTITLED to listen to it as you ever were... Easy! Of course, you're not allowed to back it up, so it becomes a little challenging, but that's hardly their fault, now is it?

    Same thing with the copy protected CDs that won't work in cars, computers, some DVD players, some CD players, some parts of the house.... just because you're ENTITLED to play it, doesn't mean you actually CAN.

    That's their logic, as far as I can tell.

    So in that case, if my CD gets broken I can download it for free from the Internet, right? I already 'bought the license to listen' ....

  • Re:Yup... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C0rinthian ( 770164 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:17PM (#14737812)
    I would imagine that if you sell the original copy, you would be expected to destroy any backups you had made.

    The point is that you purchased the work, and made a backup copy for yourself. Because you own the original, then the backup is a legit copy. Both copies are in the possession of the original purchaser.

    When you choose to sell your original, things change. Because you no longer own the original, any copies in your posession are no longer legit. Now two seperate parties have possession of the work, but only one was paid for.

    That's the key to fair use. Who has access to the work vs. who has paid for the work. I'm a strong advocate of fair use, and I fully agree that the *IAA are overstepping their boundaries. However, I don't agree with abusing fair-use to get something free. IMO the scenario above (keeping a copy and re-selling the original) is an abuse of fair-use.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger