ripping cds to your iPod is not fair use ?

[pam123]

It's the RIAA, again : http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php

:rolleyes:

[rspassey]

So now what? If you buy an IPod you can only 'legally' obtain music through ITunes? What the Heck????????

[Panama Red]

Beginning to sound like the RIAA needs to hire some lawyers that are higher up on the food chain. These bottom feeders they keep using can't even think straight! That is just plain absurd!

[TwoRails]

So now what? If you buy an IPod you can only 'legally' obtain music through ITunes? What the Heck????????
I knew I didn't buy one for a reason...

[doctorgonzo]

Beginning to sound like the RIAA needs to hire some lawyers that are higher up on the food chain. These bottom feeders they keep using can't even think straight! That is just plain absurd!

Sadly, these aren't ignorant lawyers. This is exactly what the RIAA is paying these people for. I'm sure that they honestly believe that format-shifting is not fair use.

It's the RIAA itself that needs to be replaced, not their lawyers. They are acting like complete fools. Through things like this, the RIAA is destroying itself better than anybody else could. They are taking the wrong position on just about everything these days.

[Panama Red]

Yeah, I know you're right, doc. It just seems that the argument is so absurd that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would point out to the RIAA the error of their ways. I guess it's easier to argue on their behalf and take their money.

[doctorgonzo]

Yeah, I know you're right, doc. It just seems that the argument is so absurd that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would point out to the RIAA the error of their ways. I guess it's easier to argue on their behalf and take their money.

Given legislation like the DMCA, it may very well be possible that somewhere in the lawbooks, the RIAA does have a leg to stand on when they argue that changing format isn't fair use.

The RIAA and the people they get to write the laws for them don't use common sense, so even if it seems perfectly reasonable that putting music on an iPod should be fair use, who knows what the laws say these days?

[mbossman2]

contrary to popular belief a lawyer doesn't have to agree with his client...just represent their point of view as they are paid to do...

of course, I, personally, find it much easier to be persuasive if I actually believe what I am saying but that is not a requirement (ever been in a debate club? you get stuck with the "other side" often enough to at least try to sound convincing)

[rspassey]

I knew I didn't buy one for a reason...

Agreed. And this removes all reason for me to ever even think about buying one. I know my dad wants one to put all his CDs on for when he travels, I will show him this, and try to persuade him away from the IPod series.

[pam123]

If you need a good laugh just remember that the other members of the RIAA have been doing their best to 'dethrone' Apple, that Sony/BMG Rootkit was aimed at stopping you ripping the music into iTunes to use on your iPod.
So now the Apple "zombies" and their iPods can forget about cds, if they haven't already.
I can see the Apple ad now : Be legal! Use iTunes downloads. (Approved by the RIAA-eat your heart out Sony)

[doctorgonzo]

Agreed. And this removes all reason for me to ever even think about buying one. I know my dad wants one to put all his CDs on for when he travels, I will show him this, and try to persuade him away from the IPod series.

It looks like this is the RIAA, not Apple, so it's not like iPods are being singled out. The RIAA is arguing that this applies to any MP3 player, as well as backups.

[pam123]

Agreed. And this removes all reason for me to ever even think about buying one. I know my dad wants one to put all his CDs on for when he travels, I will show him this, and try to persuade him away from the IPod series.


Don't do that yet.
The RIAA will be losing this one, not to mention the fact that they're going to have to explain their "change of heart" to the Supreme Court.

[flawedreality5]

This is unbelievable. I think the RIAA is trying to make up for the losses they suffered through P2P.

[pam123]

This is unbelievable. I think the RIAA is trying to make up for the losses they suffered through P2P.


No.
The only folks who would be affected by decisions like this ( and by copy protection ) are the people who actually buy the cds.
As for P2P as more and more numbrs roll in, latest from Canada was a few weeks back, it's become quit clear that P2P is the excuse not the reason.
Think about it.
Why is the existence of pirates a justification for attempting to destroy fair use?
It's not going affect the pirates.

[SonicVanguard]

Don't do that yet.
The RIAA will be losing this one, not to mention the fact that they're going to have to explain their "change of heart" to the Supreme Court.
This is not a change of heart - it may be perfectly lawful to rip a CD if you have been given authorization to do so. The EFF - just like the RIAA. MPAA and anyone else people think stomp on supposed rights - is twisting the facts. The fact is, you may have the legal right to do something - if you obtain authorization to do it.
"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."
The DMCA does restrict rights to making digital copies - unlike copyright's fair use laws that allow someone to make an analog copy of something they already have rights to use.

[blue60007]

Just when you thought they couldn't get any more brain-dead

[pam123]

Here's what their lawyer said before the court last year : "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

You notice there's nothing here about you needing "authorization".

The DMCA, the change is their proposal for the upcoming re-write, is being used to whittle down your fair use rights as far as they think they can get away with.
E-mail your congress critter.

[als814]

This is what happens when organizations are allowed to operate as a cartel.

[David M]

This is so absurd it is comical. Truly a long lost episode from Dumb and Dumber. Let them screw themselves...they are not as important or as powerful as they used to be. Stupidity cannot reproduce and they will go extinct if they continue their self-destructive, de-evolutionary behavior. People have options and will go elsewhere. They are not the only game in town. I will definately never buy an Ipod...not when I cannot put music from my own legally purchased CD's on the thing. They think everyone wants to pay 80 cents a song which can only be downloaded from the internet?....yeah right. I think the LA smog causes partial insanity or at the very least, mild retardation.

You have to admit though that it is great entertainment to see an obsolete technological dinosaur go through its final death throes...trying to hurt the same customers that feed the beast as it lays on its side gasping for more money. I'm sure they long for the days of vinyl records which wore out and could not be repoduced or replaced except by going to the record store and buying another vinyl album. At the beginning of last century the buggy whip manufacturers went belly up from a new technology...at the beginning of this century we will see it happen to the recording industry, as it exists, all because of technological advancements...good riddance. The world will be better off without their consumer abuses.

[pam123]

I will definately never buy an Ipod...not when I cannot put music from my own legally purchased CD's on the thing.

Apple isn't at fault in this, it's the RIAA's attempt to make you pay anytime you do anything with the music.
It's not just iPods, it's any mp3 player, anytime you make a copy of the music, anytime you change the format.
Oh, and if you've got a Tivo you better not try time shifting either.
Have you heard the term "lock-in"?

[David M]

Pam,
I was not accusing Apple of anything nefarious. If the recording industry wants to go head with it, then there will not be much incentive to purchase an Ipod. The bottom line is that it hurts the musicians and the consumer who are the only ones in this whole scenario that I am concerned about. I understand that it is an act of desperation from the recording industry who are in an impossible situation and realize new technology has made them obsolete.

I think eventually that when a band wants to cut an album, they will pay a music studio to record. The recording studio will do the editing and the artwork and will be responsible for the end product. The new album will be sent from the recording studio directly to the bands website. When a fan wants an album of theirs, the fan will go to the bands website and pay for the song directly to the website. Bands websites could be clustered into one or two websites whose purpose it is to promote the bands. If the band wants to hire an ad agency to promote the product then so be it. If you want a CD you will be order it directly from the website. The money will then go directly into the bands bank account. There will be no need for a recording industry at that point. This is a little oversimplified but it is the general idea. It cuts out the middle man (the recording industry) completely. It will make music less expensive for the consumer and will make a lot more money for the artists. The artists will become millionaires if there is sufficient demand for their music.

Software will need to be encrypted into the music itself which puts a limit to how many times a song can be copied to other media. Fair is fair music fans, the musicians need to get paid for their work. It will have to be some darn good 128 or 256 bit encryption that would take a lifetime to bust.

[doctorgonzo]

I think eventually that when a band wants to cut an album, they will pay a music studio to record, the music will be sent to that bands website from the recording studio. When a fan wants an album of theirs, the fan will go to the bands website and pay for the song directly from the website. The money will go directly into the bands bank account. There will be no need for a recording industry at that point. That is a little oversimplified but it is the general idea.

I agree totally, which is why the RIAA is acting so idiotically. They are dinosaurs and will not be around much longer; the days when record labels acted as the gateway between musicians and the public has been destroyed by the internet. Now they are grasping at straws.

[pam123]

May I suggest magnatune : http://magnatune.com/

[David M]

Hey Doc...hows it going? I was hoping we would agree on something one day. :) I enjoy the debates.

[mbossman2]

I think eventually that when a band wants to cut an album, they will pay a music studio to record. The recording studio will do the editing and the artwork and will be responsible for the end product. The new album will be sent from the recording studio directly to the bands website. When a fan wants an album of theirs, the fan will go to the bands website and pay for the song directly to the website. Bands websites could be clustered into one or two websites whose purpose it is to promote the bands. If the band wants to hire an ad agency to promote the product then so be it. If you want a CD you will be order it directly from the website. The money will then go directly into the bands bank account. There will be no need for a recording industry at that point. This is a little oversimplified but it is the general idea. It cuts out the middle man (the recording industry) completely. It will make music less expensive for the consumer and will make a lot more money for the artists. The artists will become millionaires if there is sufficient demand for their music.


you mean provide value? but that takes work...

[David M]

LOL...a little work never hurt anyone.

[SonicVanguard]

I think eventually that when a band wants to cut an album, they will pay a music studio to record. The recording studio will do the editing and the artwork and will be responsible for the end product. The new album will be sent from the recording studio directly to the bands website. When a fan wants an album of theirs, the fan will go to the bands website and pay for the song directly to the website. Bands websites could be clustered into one or two websites whose purpose it is to promote the bands. If the band wants to hire an ad agency to promote the product then so be it. If you want a CD you will be order it directly from the website. The money will then go directly into the bands bank account. There will be no need for a recording industry at that point. This is a little oversimplified but it is the general idea. It cuts out the middle man (the recording industry) completely. It will make music less expensive for the consumer and will make a lot more money for the artists. The artists will become millionaires if there is sufficient demand for their music.
You're joking, right? You have no grasp of what a record company does - none whatsoever. I could write a disertation on the need for a group like the RIAA - will it change, most certainly. Will what you are describing happen - absolutley not, at least not in our lifetimes. Regardless of what most people think - not to mention what most artists think - the RIAA does protect the interest of the artist. Artists just don't see it because most of todays artists think that a record deal = $$$. When that has never been the case. The equation is this: (Record deal + recoupable $$$) * studio time = Marketable product. (Marketable product - recoupables) * (touring + hard work) = $$$$ And that is very over simplified.
Software will need to be encrypted into the music itself which puts a limit to how many times a song can be copied to other media. Fair is fair music fans, the musicians need to get paid for their work. It will have to be some darn good 128 or 256 bit encryption that would take a lifetime to bust.
You're describing - in a simplified way - what we have now.

[pam123]

Why artist don't believe the RIAA (don't like goes without saying).
The definitive essay was written nearly six years ago by Courtney Love : http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml

[786ARS]

whatever the riaa says, i do not care. i bought the music, and if i want to putit on my ipod, that is my choice. final. why are they fussing about something they have no controll over?

[Mac Medic]

It really doesn't make any difference what they or the courts decide, i'll continue to rip my music and use my MP3 player how I choose. If I become a criminal in the process so be it. I have yet to see one of their little schemes that actually deters real piracy and that cant be broken anyway.

[SonicVanguard]

Why artist don't believe the RIAA (don't like goes without saying).
The definitive essay was written nearly six years ago by Courtney Love : http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml
And she ripped off Steve Albini for her 'essay'. Tells you a little bit about Courtney Love and her 'ethics'. Not to mention she's willing to say just about anything to get press. Here's the original: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html Much of his 'essay' is old - quite old. Many of his comps and recoups are no longer an issue with digital music. And the touring scene has changed drastically.

Both Albini and Love talk a good game - but funny thing is they've both made millions from the music industry. Hmmm...go figure. Artists love to look the part of hating the RIAA - and it's good PR for their fans to think the band/artist really cares about their fan base. Reality is, artists would be lost without the RIAA - they'd also be poor.

One question: Since when did the artist make money from recording an album? Traditionally, the artist has made money from touring - otherwise known as working. When an album is recorded, who's really working? The artist? To a certain extent. The record company maybe? DING-DING-DING - in more ways than most people know.

[colecifer]

This is why i buy mp3's off of allofmp3.com, no hassling with cd's. Sure i know its not exactly legit but t its more likely for them to get shut down than for me to get in trouble.

[pam123]

I've heard the "you made money so it doesn't matter what you say" argument before.
Albini is on record as having no argument with Love using what he said in fact he wants all musicians to use it.
As for what they both contributed to, this is the pdf. about the music industries acconting practices : http://www.futureofmusic.org/images/CAaccountinghearing.pdf
It would also seem, with the California State Assembly breathing down their necks, the recording industry gave ground : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=879480
There's no "infringement" here and no reason to imply that there is.
The intersting question is : "Why shouldn't artist make money on record albums? Music companies do.
Yeah it's old, and it's still true.

[Marbles]

I Uploaded 13 cd's onto my ipod, thats not cool....

[pam123]

I Uploaded 13 cd's onto my ipod, thats not cool....

Relax.
For now you're still legal though the RIAA is doing it's best to see to it that that doesn't last.