R
ring.of.steel
Guest
I actually went and read the brief from the RIAA (21 pages)
*Yawns*
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I actually went and read the brief from the RIAA (21 pages)
*Yawns*
so, I cant copy the cd onto a different medium ie hard drive, ipod, etc
I cant broadcast the cd to the public
I cant download the song and copy it to a different medium
so, i'm breaking the law if i do anything other than listen to my cd on my cd player with my headphones.
heck i dont even own a cd player unless you count my pc and the one in my car.
I wonder.. is it illegal to copy a song off of the radio, if so Sattelite radio companies like XM and Sirius are selling products that allow us to break the law even further
lets all go to jail.
hahaha
I just stopped buying CD's altogether.
I actually went and read the brief from the RIAA (21 pages), and I can *not* find where they claim that merely making a copy of a CD onto your hard drive constitutes infringement. Their claim is that, if you copy a CD to a P-2-P "shared" folder, then that constitutes infringement. It isn't the act of making a copy that they object to, but the act of making a copy that is then freely available to download. The entire thrust of their argument is that putting a copy of their stuff in your shared folder is, by definition, distribution of content (which is arguable, but does have some legal backing).
I *do not* like the RIAA for the stuff they pull, but the claim they are making is much less drastic that what the story makes it appear.
I actually went and read the brief from the RIAA (21 pages), and I can *not* find where they claim that merely making a copy of a CD onto your hard drive constitutes infringement. Their claim is that, if you copy a CD to a P-2-P "shared" folder, then that constitutes infringement. It isn't the act of making a copy that they object to, but the act of making a copy that is then freely available to download. The entire thrust of their argument is that putting a copy of their stuff in your shared folder is, by definition, distribution of content (which is arguable, but does have some legal backing).
I *do not* like the RIAA for the stuff they pull, but the claim they are making is much less drastic that what the story makes it appear.
(emphasis added)Once 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.
You are not going to believe this one. The RIAA claims that copying your legally purchased CD to your PC is an infringement. Huh?!?! I am quite literally astounded that there hasnt been a national uprising against these guys by now...or at the very least, a nationwide music boycott to send a message loud and clear that we are not giving up our rights to fair use.
Yeah maybe but it is nowhere near as bad as the situation you have over there.
Similarly, every Tivo and other DVR device also infringes copyrights.
Soon enough you will be buying ITune cards with "20 more plays" on them.
"Damn, I really wanted to listen to that again, guess I will need to buy another license to listen card"
I *do not* like the RIAA for the stuff they pull, but the claim they are making is much less drastic that what the story makes it appear.
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.
If I play the CD, and remember the music and lyrics, is the copy in my neurons illegal too?
It's ok, it's the last gasp of a group that will be inconsequential soon. The labels know their time is limited, and that artists will be releasing their music on their own soon, with no need for a label.
This is precisely why I have boycotted music for many years now (besides all the crap out there).
So...if I buy a CD then what exactly am I paying X price for if I can not do what I want with the music? I basically just bought a used CD which I can not write anything to, can not take the contents off because it is "illegal?"
If the record companies have their way, you are paying for the right to listen - by yourself - to the CD via a CD player. That's where your rights end.