RIAA Says Personal Copies Are “Unauthorized”

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
A lot of people here have stopped buying cds already. I haven't for years. If i can get a mp3 for 50-99 cents or sometimes for free then convert it to be used on any platform i want then i'll take that any day. Protection goes up to a certain point until it takes away sales/interest. The easier it is to access something the more likely people will use that source instead. 15 seconds or less you can download a song. It takes over 20 minutes usually plus gas is a fortune these days then when you get the cd it has a bunch of crappy songs and 1-2 good ones. The artists only makes pennys off a cd while the riaa and all those companies make a fortune from it. When you buy online the artist gets way more of the money. Thats why i heard 50 cent approves filesharing. The more crowds that get to hear your music the more money you'll take home at the end. I'm pretty sure if someone really like a band that they'll buy atleast one of their cds to support them or even going to their concert. That also supports the band. The only people complaining here so much is the greedy corporations afraid of becoming obsolete. Sooner or later gas companies are going to start doing this. They are going to sue all the other companies for dumb reasons so they can postpone the inevitable. Sooner or later they will die off. Not completely but to a point where they can do jack anymore. Technology always prevails in the end. It went from records to tapes to cds then now mp3s. There should be laws for how many lawsuits you can file in a given time. Riaa and mpaa are just using and abusing the system now pretty much.
 

bassman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
1,393
This is why no one has gotten in trouble for downloading TV shows. If you download the DVD of the TV show, then that's a problem, but not individual episodes.

Several people have received lovely letters from their ISPs for downloading episodes of a TV show from BitTorrent. Technically, they are uploading too (because it's BitTorrent), but the point is TV shows aren't necessarily "safe".

Here's one.

They should make a mobile version of that page, or do they have one already?

http://riaaradar.com/mobile/
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
correction. You'd be paying for every time you listen to each song
Quite right. The RIAA would likely wish to consider this "public exhibition". You, your CD player, a pair of headphones and a credit card reader.
 

OvrrDrive

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 7, 2001
Messages
2,213
If you can't legally rip the CD, why buy it? What are you purchasing when you buy a CD, the music or the disc? If I play the CD in a boombox, and record it with a mic, is that illegal too? Where does it all end? Being the only music cartel on the block and owning many legislators, the RIAA can pretty much do/say whatever they want. Thankfully some music labels are beginning to see the light and are abandoning them. They serve no purpose other than to protect corperate greed and to destroy the fair use rights of the consumer.


That's a very interesting comment...

If we can all get the music for free (albeit illegally) than what on earth would cause us to actually decide to purchase the actual CD if we won't be allowed to do anything with it?

I've always thought that someone should set up a website where people could anonymously donate money to their favorite artists so that they could support them directly without lining the pockets of an organization that hates it's customers but loves their money. That way if you acquired a piece of music you really liked, you could just go send $5 or so directly to the artist.

RIAA is bad news all around...




They're actually completely within the limits of the law to asser that. Buying a CD does not grant you a license (implicit or otherwise) to make a copy of a CD.

Similarly, every Tivo and other DVR device also infringes copyrights.

It may be ridiculous, but that's the law. Read the copyright act. There's no "first sale" doctrine on the content, just the physical object itself.

For example: buy a book; you can re-sell the book to a friend. You can't make a photocopy of the book to replace the book. The idea is that you're buying the CD to listen to the music in the CD player. If you want the songs in another medium, you pay for another medium. Of course, no one does that, but that's the way the law recognizes copyright, and that's the way the studios want it, obviously.

Fair use covers things like research and criticism, not "personal use." There's never been any "fair use" for any remotely personal use aside from the Betamax case, which many agree was wrongly decided for many reasons, and has a very thoughtful dissent by Justice Blackmun.

So according to your logic, if I go to walmart and buy some toilet paper I'm not explicitly or implicitly allowed to use it for anything other than the perceived intended use or else I'm breaking the law?

So I'm ok to wipe my ass with it but if I have a runny nose I have to go back to the store and get some nasal tissues?

That's ridiculous. If I buy a CD I should be allowed to use it for anything I wish to as long as I'm the only one enjoying it and in possession of the copy I bought and paid for. If I want to take the same CD and wipe my ass with it because I think it's worth less than the toilet paper I bought then that is my god given right. By siding with the riaa you're empowering them. I think what they're doing is in extremely bad taste.

A boycott is a great idea but we can't call for it here as most on this forum aren't spending any money on them anyway.
 

jellisii

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
71
A lot of people here have stopped buying cds already. I haven't for years. If i can get a mp3 for 50-99 cents or sometimes for free then convert it to be used on any platform i want then i'll take that any day.

The problem with this is that for the real audiophile MP3 sounds like garbage. Uncompressed would be fine, or FLAC (IMO, with caveats), but MP3 is only really good for sonic wallpaper. For serious listening, CD (some would say vinyl) is the only way to do it.

Shure, I have an IPod, and listen to music off of it while I'm doing stuff, but that is just sonic wallpaper. There are times, however, where all I want to do is get lost in the music. If you have more than $1000 wrapped up into a 2.1 rig without a display (or about that much on a headphones rig), you'll hear the difference very easily. Ask the audiophile guys in the A/V forum.
 

havand

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Messages
420
...

I've always thought that someone should set up a website where people could anonymously donate money to their favorite artists so that they could support them directly without lining the pockets of an organization that hates it's customers but loves their money. That way if you acquired a piece of music you really liked, you could just go send $5 or so directly to the artist.

RIAA is bad news all around...


I friend of mine had considered doing this. A way to let the bands know that while you're unwilling to buy their CD because it supports the RIAA, that you appreciate their music and want them to make more. We kinda decided against it though. Reason being, at the end of the day you'd have payed the band and could still get your a$$ sued by the RIAA. No protection was bought. Which, personally, if i'm paying the band, I kinda would want.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
That's a very interesting comment...

If we can all get the music for free (albeit illegally) than what on earth would cause us to actually decide to purchase the actual CD if we won't be allowed to do anything with it?

I've always thought that someone should set up a website where people could anonymously donate money to their favorite artists so that they could support them directly without lining the pockets of an organization that hates it's customers but loves their money. That way if you acquired a piece of music you really liked, you could just go send $5 or so directly to the artist.

RIAA is bad news all around...






So according to your logic, if I go to walmart and buy some toilet paper I'm not explicitly or implicitly allowed to use it for anything other than the perceived intended use or else I'm breaking the law?

So I'm ok to wipe my ass with it but if I have a runny nose I have to go back to the store and get some nasal tissues?

That's ridiculous. If I buy a CD I should be allowed to use it for anything I wish to as long as I'm the only one enjoying it and in possession of the copy I bought and paid for. If I want to take the same CD and wipe my ass with it because I think it's worth less than the toilet paper I bought then that is my god given right. By siding with the riaa you're empowering them. I think what they're doing is in extremely bad taste.

A boycott is a great idea but we can't call for it here as most on this forum aren't spending any money on them anyway.

Just don't wipe your ass with CD's. Toilet paper works better. Or seashells. ;)
 

[RIP]Zeus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
2,590
Just don't wipe your ass with CD's. Toilet paper works better. Or seashells. ;)

LOL Seashells


Somtimes i wish i could make a robot or somthing that just went to the riaa HQ and shoot them dead... or rather torture them to where the riaa just gives up, and dies peacefully...

then again i need to stop drinking :D
 

john2k

n00b
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
39
For serious listening, CD (some would say vinyl) is the only way to do it.

Vinyl as in record players? So, would that be serious listening for nostalgic reasons or are you saying that some people claim that vinyl actually has better sound quality than CDs or digital versions?
 

theDreamer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,513
Vinyl as in record players? So, would that be serious listening for nostalgic reasons or are you saying that some people claim that vinyl actually has better sound quality than CDs or digital versions?

Vinyl has higher quality because it is less "compressed" and more "natural" sound, now this is up to the ears listening to it, and for me it is tough between a good CD recording v. a good vinyl. Though if you want the best you look into Vinyl, still up for debate though.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,286
Personally I buy music through Napster. Some of the files are DRM encrypted, but since I purchased the song, I entitled myself to removing the DRM using this wonderful piece of software called Tunebite which is legal.

To clarify, it's illegal if Tunebite was to hack the DRM code and removed it, which they don't. They merely make a non-DRM copy of the song you have by recording it again while playing it.

In my POV, it's no different from ripping purchased CDs into your computer. You already bought and paid for it. Fair use :D

Unauthorize this RIAA ,,!,,

actuly no you cant thats DMCA land there and removing the DRM = jail time
 

JDAdams

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
676
I don't require the RIAA to "authorise" my copies (all my CDs are MP3-copied to my PC for convenience) in the same way that I don't require VESA to "release" my screen resolution or JEDEC to "set" my memory timings. All of these bodies are pretty pointless to me, I fail to recognise any authority from or see the point of any of them, but the RIAA is the only one that seems to enjoy throwing its weight around in this manner AND . Bloody useless the lot of them! Too many official bodies keeping people in jobs.
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
actuly no you cant thats DMCA land there and removing the DRM = jail time

Tunebite doesn't remove the DRM. It records new copies of the file without DRM.

Quote from Tunebite's website:

Tunebite: The DRM killer – A legal license to convert

Instead of illegally defeating copy-protection measures, Tunebite uses an innovative, technically optimized process that records original files as they play and legally saves the recordings in unprotected digital formats. All three Tunebite editions convert copy-protected music and audio books stored in the WMA, M4P, M4B and M4A formats. Tunebite Platinum additionally converts copy-protected films and videos stored in the WMV and M4V formats.

Legally remove copy protection from purchased music and video
RS audials complete legally removes copy protection from DRM protected music files, audio books and video files, video clips and movies with the approved Tunebite technology by recording them while they are being played and then saving the new audio & video files full automatically and in best digital quality on PC hard disk. Including several file formats for mobile devices.

It's illegal if you remove the DRM from the file that has DRM on it. Tunebite doesn't remove it. It just records a new copy. Before you say "well that's still wrong because you're defeating DRM", you still need the DRM license to play a file, even in Tunebite, before it can record a new copy for you. So thus you have to already legally own the song anyways.

This makes Tunebite legal with the Fair Use clause.

Here's Tunebite's website if you wish to investigate further: http://tunebite.com/
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
That doesn't necessarily make Tunebite legal. In fact, I think Tunebite is *not* legal because it falls under this language:

It's illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work."
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
That doesn't necessarily make Tunebite legal. In fact, I think Tunebite is *not* legal because it falls under this language:

It's illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work."

Yet microphones exist. Tunebite operates 100% exactly like microphones. You can hold a microphone to your speakers while your DRM music is playing, recording a new copy without DRM.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
Yet microphones exist. Tunebite operates 100% exactly like microphones. You can hold a microphone to your speakers while your DRM music is playing, recording a new copy without DRM.
..... What does that have to do with whether it's illegal or not?
 

JDAdams

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
676
..... What does that have to do with whether it's illegal or not?

Well, given the ease of holding a mike to the speaker, obviously what DRM does is "INeffectively control access to a work" , thereby there is no breach here is it isn't effective! In fact with the exact wording used breaking any protection in itself immediately means that it WASN'T "effectively" controlled and therefore isn't covered. Someone use this in court, please :p
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
..... What does that have to do with whether it's illegal or not?

Does fair rights use mean anything to you?

You buy the CD. You have the rights to use it as you please in your own home for your own listening pleasure.

Tunebite is not violating anything except the minds of oversensitive law huggers who likes to pick things apart and the RIAA.

Who's to say I'm using Tunebites to record my own paid for songs to make copies for backup? This falls under fair use.

Tunebite is just a tool. Its the users who violate the law and distribute music they copied.

Don't make me compare Tunebite with guns next because it will sound stupid :p
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
Does fair rights use mean anything to you?

You buy the CD. You have the rights to use it as you please in your own home for your own listening pleasure.

Tunebite is not violating anything except the minds of oversensitive law huggers who likes to pick things apart and the RIAA.

Who's to say I'm using Tunebites to record my own paid for songs to make copies for backup? This falls under fair use.

Tunebite is just a tool. Its the users who violate the law and distribute music they copied.

Don't make me compare Tunebite with guns next because it will sound stupid :p
I'm not saying it *should* be illegal, just that *it is*.

The DMCA straight-up makes it illegal to circumvent an effective access control method. Period. End of story. There are no "fair use" exemptions in the DMCA for this.s

This makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM in iTunes Store songs. Even if you use a 100% legal microphone to do it.

I think the law is absurd, but it's still the law.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
Technically speaking, the DMCA is unconstitutional. Chapter 1 section 117 of copyright law states that it is legal to make one copy of your purchased software for archive purposes only.

Entertainment companies knew that they could not override that preexisting law. So what they did was buyout certain senators and representatives to push forward the DMCA. One of them was Orin "down the" Hatch of Utah.

The first part of the DMCA states that it is unlawful to circumvent any copy protection scheme. That was the work around. Once passed, copy protection was put on EVERYTHING.

Yes, you still have the right to make a copy of the media, BUT IF it has copy protection on it, you cannot.

Now, those program that do not circumvent copy protection, but are actually making a true copy, protection scheme and all, do not violate the DMCA, for you are not circumventing it. yet the corporations have convinced the judges otherwise.

These days, you buy justice. Legislation is run buy deep pocket companies and organizations. We the people are no longer represented. Last time that happend, we had the Revolutionary War.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
Technically speaking, the DMCA is unconstitutional. Chapter 1 section 117 of copyright law states that it is legal to make one copy of your purchased software for archive purposes only.
The copyright law section of Title 17 is not the Constitution.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
I'm not saying it *should* be illegal, just that *it is*.

The DMCA straight-up makes it illegal to circumvent an effective access control method. Period. End of story. There are no "fair use" exemptions in the DMCA for this.s

This makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM in iTunes Store songs. Even if you use a 100% legal microphone to do it.

I think the law is absurd, but it's still the law.

This nation is being turned into one big penal colony. Just like Australia used to be.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
The copyright law section of Title 17 is not the Constitution.

"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."



I never said it was part of the constitution, but technicaly, laws have to be repealed or abolished, not overwriten or nulified by others.
 

kumquat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
5,269
"§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."



I never said it was part of the constitution, but technicaly, laws have to be repealed or abolished, not overwriten or nulified by others.
The DMCA doesn't repeal or nullify the above text.

It's still *not illegal* to make a copy of software for the above reasons.

But it is illegal to break the encryption that prevents you from doing so :)
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
The DMCA doesn't repeal or nullify the above text.

It's still *not illegal* to make a copy of software for the above reasons.

But it is illegal to break the encryption that prevents you from doing so :)

That is why I stated above that once the DMCA passed, they put encryption on everything. That is how they circumvented that section copyright law
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
In the context of this case, the claim is interesting and I hope it's tested. Unfortunately, the two people defending themselves are going to get buried by a much better funded plaintiff. Too bad a McLibel style defense isn't likely to work here.

Just say someone like Howell (in Atlantic v. Howell) was accused of file sharing, was ordered by a court to turn over his computer to the plaintiff's forensic examiner and that examiner found many music files.

It's already been established (also in this case) that "making available" music on P2P network is infringing, and obviously Atlantic has a list of songs they are accusing Howell of infringing. Any other songs that were not made available are on very shaky ground as infringment, but I think the plaintiff mostly wants to imply that Howell is a big music pirate. Howell is in a very poor position because he needs to demonstrate why evidence should be excluded (something Atlantic will not go along with), although it would be a huge win for the judge to side against the opinion of unauthorized copies.

Or this could turn into another Jammie Thomas fiasco if the plaintiff shows the hash of the "unauthorized" files in question were downloaded files. In that case, Howell should have just paid the earth and water tribute and kissed the ring.
 

cefoskey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
234
I think poeple need to actually read what the RIAA said.

They said ripped to mp3 and placed in his shared folder.

There is the key, AND placed in his shared folder.

It isn't converting to mp3, putting it on your computer, etc. It is doing it AND putting it into your shared folder for a p2p program.


ding ding ding!

we have a winner.

I cant believe the furor people get into when they dont actually read the information behind articles. This scares me, because this is the kind of thing that gets people elected.

But anyway, this story is actually stating NOTHING NEW. Its illegal to make files available for download via P2P. Thats established.
 

cefoskey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
234
Legal Brief said:
Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

Key parts of the text. How this was construed as "you cant rip your CDs" is beyond me.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
I put all my music and other media in a shared folder. Whats wrong with that?
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
I put all my music and other media in a shared folder. Whats wrong with that?

I see nothing wrong with it at all. Shared folder is a must for multimedia PC and storage PC to run music from anywhere in the house.

RIAA can't tell me I can't share my music among MY other computers in MY house.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
I see nothing wrong with it at all. Shared folder is a must for multimedia PC and storage PC to run music from anywhere in the house.

RIAA can't tell me I can't share my music among MY other computers in MY house.

That is exactly what I have. I have a PC hooked up to my TV and stereo which gets its files from my file server. All of which are on my class C private network.
 

MurphysLaww

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
182
Soon,very soon !






There will always be a need for big labels.

We're not talking about movies here that need millions of $$$ to produce. Bands have their own instuments, can get HIGH level Studio time to produce a Digital copy of their product and MOST DEFINATELY can cut out the middle man.

Here in Austin, the Radio Station KGSR, produces a CD every year of local artists that sells out every year.

Radiohead proved it could be done and are lauging all the way to the bank. I paid $4.00 US for In Rainbows which meant they made about $3.80 more of my $4 than they would have had they released it on a label.

Tell me that isn't going to happen more and more, and that the emplyees at the Labels aren't Polishing up their Resumes...
 

MurphysLaww

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
182
Soon,very soon !






There will always be a need for big labels.

We're not talking about movies here that need millions of $$$ to produce. Bands have their own instuments, can get HIGH level Studio time to produce a Digital copy of their product and MOST DEFINATELY can cut out the middle man.

Here in Austin, the Radio Station KGSR, produces a CD every year of local artists that sells out every year.

Radiohead proved it could be done and are lauging all the way to the bank. I paid $4.00 US for In Rainbows which meant they made about $3.80 more of my $4 than they would have had they released it on a label.

Tell me that isn't going to happen more and more, and that the employees at the Labels aren't Polishing up their Resumes...
 

PurduEE

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2000
Messages
1,788
I never said it was part of the constitution, but technicaly, laws have to be repealed or abolished, not overwriten or nulified by others.

I don't know where you're getting this 'technically' stuff - any lawyer will tell you that new laws can supercede other laws, case law gets overturned without references to ALL the cases that are overruled, and federal regulations pre-empt state law without any notification or documentation that the old laws are no longer 'good.' There's nothing in the Constitution that says the process of law must be clear-cut and orderly.

Westlaw and Lexis have businesses at least partially built on the difficulty in determining what law is "good" and what is "bad"
 

matrix563

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
19,144
Key parts of the text. How this was construed as "you cant rip your CDs" is beyond me.
uh did u read the article? the judge asked them to define if copies for personal use are legal, and the riaa basically said no copies are legal. at least what i got from it.
 

Retsam

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
3,902
I dunno but, that is so absurd its laughable.

Statments like that make me want to pirate just to get back at moronic organizations like the RIAA.


Whats next? Make CD's have limited number of uses? Listen to this CD 5 times for $10 before it degrades lol.

Or anyone seen with an Ipod can be arrested for suspicion of piracy? rofl.... I mean really what does the RIAA think they are going to do? Like even if they did make it illegal to copy your own music that you purchased, how would they even enforce that. They are just trying to scare people?

At this rate nobody is ever going to want to purchase a CD again. If copying songs on your own legit CDs is illegal, you might as well just download the thing for free and save the money...
 
Top