Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use – washingtonpost.com
The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.
At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy,’ ” she said.
Wait, I am allowed to use a TiVo or similar device to record and time-shift a television program – the devices from Dish Network additionally allow a person to skip the ads – but I am NOT allowed to rip the CDs I bought in order to hear the music on an iPod or similar device? Maybe the RIAA should also sue Apple for enabling the iPod to play back music ripped on a computer, as literally everything ripped on that computer is deemed illegal by the RIAA. Or what about this?
OLIVE | SAVE THE SOUND. – OLIVE’S AWARD-WINNING MUSIC SERVER LINE. – OVERVIEW
Simply copy your CDs with one click to the OPUS’ internal hard drive and enjoy instant access to all your music, in spectacular quality.
Aren’t they advocating an illegal activity?
This is insanity! Both ends of the spectrum that stretches between P2P and RIAA, are clearly outside any common sense.
How crazy are these two extremes? Well, what comes to my mind are religious fanatics, arguing about the divine nature of a leader’s uttering… is the message human or divine? Who cares about that! Is the message any good should be the question!
One last thought: the RIAA should ask the heads of the corporations that fund the RIAA how they listen to music. Do they not use iPods? Do they not use components like the Opus or a computer? Do they really carry CDs between their office and home stereos and to their car? Or do they buy 3 copies of every CD they like, so they can listen to it at home, in their car and in the office? Somebody should make the RIAA attorneys hand over their iPods and check what’s on them!
RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it – Engadget
Okay, so we’ve done some digging into the RIAA’s lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are “unauthorized copies,” and it turns out that Jeffery isn’t actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we’re all unfortunately aware, that’s pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA’s newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs “unauthorized copies” — something it’s been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there’s a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it’s never actually been ruled as such by a judge — so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn’t ever rule on it unless they argue that it’s illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?
Its nuts Im not sure I would know what the answer is but I would hope that what ever is the out come that musicians and those who produce great music dont get ripped off. My hunch is that the big boys dont want to lose there profits that they are losing to iTunes and others that have shown that true musicians dont really need them. Like all the great music from Ottmar and his friends.
To add insult to injury wonder were they got the name I-Pod from?
Ever read the Terry Brooks novels?
Remember the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) from 1992? The RIAA REALLY pushed this thing. Remember SCMS for DAT machines …?
Well … quoting from the AHRA Senate sub-committee report on The AHRA :
“The purpose of S. 1623 is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use”
The AHRA was signed into law FIFTEEN YEARS AGO in 1992. It amended the United States copyright law by adding chapter 10: “Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media.”
ALSO … from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) section on COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (17 U.S.C. Â§ 1201):
“Other rights are not affected. Other rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, are not affected by this Act. ”
So, there are two pieces of legislation that are part of the Title 17 of the U.S Code, both of which protect an individual’s right to personal use, and now the RIAA wants to change the rules again. Weasels. It’s time to write the Electronic Frontier Foundation another cheque.
It is my view that we are listening to the wails of the media giants as they claw for a handhold as their business dies.
Adapt or die.
They chose death.
Seems advitisers check all over when writers on strike, had to laugh when I turned on local radio station , and it was like reading your journal!
Happiest of New Years and I know you felt the Happy Winter Soltice!
Snow fell and calling for more at midnight!
Have a good one ! Jackie
Outside of a ‘me too’ comment, This sounds like the RIAA grandstanding about something idiotic, while secretly playing bait-and-switch. These companies have had over 40 years of prior opportunity to put a halt to ripping music! Although it was called ‘recording’ at the time, it was some of their own companies who came out with inventions like…. the tape recorder… the VCR… the CD Recorder, the CD Rewritable… the DVD Recorder… etc. Case in point: Sony. They lost the Beta vs. VHS war, but advocated recording with their equipment in the 80s. They were one of the first to come out with CD-R and CD-RW drives in the early/mid-90s.. now lawyers on their behalf are calling copying with equipment their clients own equipment ‘illegal’?
It’s so very sad to see companies whose CEOs were musicians themselves at one time be brought to such a pathetically greed-based low.
RIAA Declares Using Brain to Remember Songs is Criminal Copyright Infringement
“On the heels of the RIAA’s recent decision to criminalize consumers who rip songs from albums they’ve purchased to their computers (or iPods), the association has now gone one step further and declared that “remembering songs” using your brain is criminal copyright infringement. “The brain is a recording device,” explained RIAA president Cary Sherman. “The act of listening is an unauthorized act of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or remembering a song is unauthorized playback.”
In order to avoid engaging in unauthorized copyright infringement, consumers will now be required to immediately forget everything they’ve just heard — a skill already mastered by U.S. President George Bush.”
I’m not clever enough write something like this, here is the link to the entire satirical column, by Mike Adams. http://www.newstarget.com/z022437.html