RIAA Says Personal Copies Are “Unauthorized”

larryBird44

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,354
I tried that RIAARADAR search and every single one of my favorite artists had a warning :(

Guess I agree with the saying, some laws are made to be broken.
 

Manaknight

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,449
Correction...MOST laws are made to be broken..

ESPECIALLY the ones created by large corporations or the federal government to exploit.
 

Mini-Me

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
567
What else is new? The RIAA has never believed in fair use, and abolishing it is the only legislative act they have not yet been able to buy (they'll eventually succeed though, once they've bumped their offer high enough).

The fact is, most of these copyright laws are illegitimate anyway...
Copyright was only meant to last for fourteen years with a chance for a fourteen year renewal, period (and even that term is a bit excessive - five years seems like a reasonable window for me to reap most profits). It was created not to reward the copyright holder for ingenuity but to promote the advancement of the arts and sciences (and only for that reason). The end goal was the advancement of the arts and sciences, and the profits the copyright holders got from temporary exclusivity were merely the means to that end. Indefinite copyrights are actually harmful to this goal, because they wrongfully prevent society from benefiting from derivative works. In addition, all works (music, literature, film, etc.) contribute to the betterment of the arts and sciences, and as such, they ultimately belong to humanity as a whole, not just the original author (or copyright holder); temporary exclusivity of copyright was merely meant to be the "incentive-machine" to keep this progress going. While this example may be blurring some lines between copyright and trademark, Mickey Mouse is still owned by Disney, yet he has taken up a place in the hearts of people all over the world for generations. By all rights, he should belong to the world as a whole now. Walt Disney is long dead and the Disney corporation has made its money time and time again, so why is Mickey Mouse still owned by a single entity to the detriment of every other person on the planet?

Anyway, copyright was originally meant to be for fourteen years. Fast forward a couple hundred years...once again, we the people have absolutely no representation. Some of us may think we have representation simply because we've been socialized to think along party lines, but the major parties truly only represent or listen to the corporations and lobbyists paying them. As such, our laws have become increasingly twisted and biased towards special interests. The sole reason copyright lasts for longer than fourteen years is because of bribery and corruption...hence, in my opinion, all of these recent copyright laws are completely illegitimate. I don't find it unreasonable to call disobeying them an act of civil disobedience, which is especially justified when you have no political representation.
 

Devistater

Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2001
Messages
651
I dunno if anyone mentioned this yet, but its easy enough to "boycott" RIAA and still get the music you want.

Buy used. RIAA gets no money. If you want to support the artists themselves, buy merchandise from thier website or goto their concerts.

Or you can try non RIAA music.
 

NightOps

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
1,168
wtf? In the supplemental brief just filed by RIAA, on Page 4, line 6/7:
"Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence."
Something like that would typically get thrown out of any court or would be the object of a HUGE objection by opposing counsel. It would appear to me that, if any court were to allow this portion of the brief, that it would be legal proof that the US Goverment was taking 'the side' of a privatized business, and would provide enough speculation for a scandal...
 

BrotherLen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
151
So if it's illegal to make a copy of music on your computer, and you purchase an iPod without a demonstrated internet connection (to purchase from itunes) would/could that show intent? Thats just silly, I wish we could check their computers to see whats on there.

I think it would be more cost effective to find another creative way to turn over a profit versus all the legal battles. Plus you would save face. Maybe I should start my own label. :confused:
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,643
What else is new? The RIAA has never believed in fair use, and abolishing it is the only legislative act they have not yet been able to buy (they'll eventually succeed though, once they've bumped their offer high enough).

The fact is, most of these copyright laws are illegitimate anyway...
Copyright was only meant to last for fourteen years with a chance for a fourteen year renewal, period (and even that term is a bit excessive - five years seems like a reasonable window for me to reap most profits). It was created not to reward the copyright holder for ingenuity but to promote the advancement of the arts and sciences (and only for that reason). The end goal was the advancement of the arts and sciences, and the profits the copyright holders got from temporary exclusivity were merely the means to that end. Indefinite copyrights are actually harmful to this goal, because they wrongfully prevent society from benefiting from derivative works. In addition, all works (music, literature, film, etc.) contribute to the betterment of the arts and sciences, and as such, they ultimately belong to humanity as a whole, not just the original author (or copyright holder); temporary exclusivity of copyright was merely meant to be the "incentive-machine" to keep this progress going. While this example may be blurring some lines between copyright and trademark, Mickey Mouse is still owned by Disney, yet he has taken up a place in the hearts of people all over the world for generations. By all rights, he should belong to the world as a whole now. Walt Disney is long dead and the Disney corporation has made its money time and time again, so why is Mickey Mouse still owned by a single entity to the detriment of every other person on the planet?

Anyway, copyright was originally meant to be for fourteen years. Fast forward a couple hundred years...once again, we the people have absolutely no representation. Some of us may think we have representation simply because we've been socialized to think along party lines, but the major parties truly only represent or listen to the corporations and lobbyists paying them. As such, our laws have become increasingly twisted and biased towards special interests. The sole reason copyright lasts for longer than fourteen years is because of bribery and corruption...hence, in my opinion, all of these recent copyright laws are completely illegitimate. I don't find it unreasonable to call disobeying them an act of civil disobedience, which is especially justified when you have no political representation.

In 1998 Disney "bought" the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Which they pushed though Sonny Bono. Original copyright length was as mentioned above, but the number of extensions was never defined. "Limited ammount of time" can theoretically mean from now till the end of humanity. It is inevintable and finite, but the length is unknown. It's call purpetual extensions.

From Wikipedia.org
"United States
In the United States, perpetual copyright is prohibited by the US Constitution, which provides that copyright must be for a limited term. However, it does not specify how long that term can be, and it has successively been extended by Congress. Some have argued that two consecutive extensions of the copyright term in the 1970s and 1990s have created a de facto "perpetual copyright on the installment plan", but this argument has been rejected by the US Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which held that the term of copyright may be extended by Congress, so long as it is still a limited term."

This is especially true concerning software. An exception must be made for it since it's obsoleteness comes very quickly compared to music, movie and liturature. In 2097 Who the hell is going to remember Windows XP? It requires vigilaties to preserve the old programs like home of the underdogs and other abandonware sites. A company does not have to make their games public domain, just declare it freeware.

present copyright laws. which are:
Corporations: 95 years
Individuals: Life + 75 years

"Elvis sure is making a lot of money for a deadman"

Personaly, I believe copyright lengths should be like this
Music, Movies, Liturature: 30 years
Software: 10 years

I do not believe the next 3 generations of an author, creator or company executives should continue to profit off someone elses works

because of all these lengths and extensions. Many unknown copyrighted materials which are not marketed or enforced will fall into the abyss of time. Only a small fraction of all copyrights ever made are still commercially exploited.

and think about this. When a copyright expires, yes the owner will no longer get royalties, but publishers still can. Especially with books and liturature. I don't want to be reading a novel off a video screen. How about you?
 

Ruckus

Hardforum Moderator-in-Chief
Staff member
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Messages
10,774
So they basically want you to pay for the cd and pay for the mp3 for your ipod?
 
Top