Recording Industry goes after personal use

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ThaBigP, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Dunno if this tickles the concept of "political" enough to fall under this forum, but here goes anyway. After years of high-profile fighting of music piracy, the recording industry now seems poised to start suing over personal use. This would include buying a CD, taking it home, and converting it to MP3 or AAC for use in an Ipod or just to listen to on the computer (we're not even talking about offering to others for download - just ripping the CD you paid for so you can use the songs on other devices).

    Here's a quote from the article:

    Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

    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
  2. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,580 Messages
    11 Likes Received
    That is complete BS. If you own the cd and don't share the files they need to butt out.
  3. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    12,193 Messages
    2,345 Likes Received
    The RIAA sucks. Instead of changing with the trends of demand, they want to strongarm the industry to stay the old way.

    Oh well - other than older stuff, most of the music I listen to is from labels that fly under the RIAA radar.
  4. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,580 Messages
    11 Likes Received
    I haven't bought any new cds in at least 2 years.
  5. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    21,521 Messages
    2,369 Likes Received
    the RIAA is literally stupid.

    If in fact you can not rip cd's then they would sell even fewer than they do now.

    They are crying about this cd swapping but people were taping the radio onto cassettes for years. Very few people are going to only listen to cds they have purchased.
  6. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament...

    29,902 Messages
    961 Likes Received
    For years they forced us to buy a whole album full of crap for one good song...

    If it wasn't pop then there rarely was a single put out...

    They are also going after clubs that have live bands and forcing them to pay fees so the bands can do cover music...

    They really have lost touch with reality...

    I blame Bush... :D
  7. windward

    windward NFL Historian

    16,127 Messages
    1,394 Likes Received
    That is really going too far.
  8. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Winter is Coming Staff Member

    64,604 Messages
    8,860 Likes Received
    Screw them.

    I only use copies of my CDs in my car.

    I keep the original for home use and make a copy for my car. No worries if they get too hot, scratched or even stolen in the car because I know they are only copies.

    Plus I have a large collection on my computer. I would guess between 1-1.5K worth of songs.
  9. heavyg

    heavyg Active Member

    1,817 Messages
    22 Likes Received
    I have always been confused over this whole music copyright situation. I thought the copyright said you could not make copies and make money off them? If your copying it for personal use where is the problem.

    As as far as file sharing goes, do the bands really make that much money off CD sales? I would think they make more money from selling concert tickets and merchandise at the concerts. File sharing is free advertsing for the bands. :bang2:
  10. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    No, the bands make pennies per album. The RIAA has no interest in protecting the artist beyond being able to sponge off of them and continue to have the lion's share of the profits.

    It's just another greedy move and will fall flat on it's face.
  11. iceberg

    iceberg winter??? RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!! Zone Supporter

    29,988 Messages
    2,827 Likes Received

    got about the first 3 seconds of a song? : )
  12. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    59,452 Messages
    11,419 Likes Received
    Very true statement.
  13. Rackat

    Rackat Active Member

    2,134 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    My second HD has about 65-70G worth of music. All stuff that I put on there for back up in case my disks got screwed up when my kids were "borrowing them" (Yes, I listen to some of their music and they listen to some of mine) or like BP so that if the disks got messed up or stolen from my car, I wouldn't be out the money or the music.

    I would like to see a class action lawsuit against the RIAA. Dunno if it would fly, but it would put their cheapskate butts on the defensive.
  14. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,177 Messages
    237 Likes Received
    VTA's got it. The RIAA is not nearly so zealous on behalf of the bands they supposedly represent. A really corrupt industry. If we could easilly do micropayments, and give the bands a nickle per song downloaded, most would make more money than they would from their CD sales. Lots of bands going the independent route now, many after learning the hard way.

    Problem is the RIAA and their Hollywood allies have been instrumentel in passing new "Digital Rights' laws that favor them. No telling what they might have or get passed.
  15. iceberg

    iceberg winter??? RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!! Zone Supporter

    29,988 Messages
    2,827 Likes Received
    hey, i run a radio station online and i can flat tell you - they do not give a DAMN about the artist, only $$$.

    for example, if we played only indie music, this latest 'ruling' for the riaa (otherwise known as would still force me to pay them the same fees. their initial request was exponantially higher than radio.

    for example. if the FM station played kid rock, SO HOT, they pay a fee. now, if we play it on my site, i pay the fee for *every person listening*. not a fraction of the fee, but the same fee, many times over.

    now, with indie music you'd think you'd get around it. but no. this ruling allowed them to collect fees FOR the indie artist, but ONLY IF they sign up as a soundexchange member (i believe. will need to check to be sure) and then i doubt they get the full pull from what they're owed.

    so if i play music NOT with soundexchange, they just keep it.

    they're still pretty mad they can't sell a CD for $20 anymore and give the artist (good ones) $1.10 a cd. tag on another $2 to produce it (full quality here) and you can see their profits are history.
  16. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,177 Messages
    237 Likes Received
    Not surprised to hear that, Ice. They claim to be so worried about their artist's rights, but they really are only worried about their ability to leach off them.

    Some of the rules they use are based on 100 year old juke box models. You won't hear them trying to modernize that, or anything like it, if it means they lose any of their gravy.

    They are essentially trying to protect their turf, and they are clueless as to how to continue making their gross skim in this new world. So they manipulate the rules and laws to force it so.
  17. iceberg

    iceberg winter??? RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!! Zone Supporter

    29,988 Messages
    2,827 Likes Received
    the RIAA is a very old group of men who know their cash cow is over and dead. all they can do is beat people into submission and try to salvage what they can in legal fees and settlements now.

    can't remember who cut funding to the RIAA recentely, but it was a sign of things to come. their time is over but they're going out as painfully / vocally as possible.

    part of the story. one the cards start to fall, no one will be there to support them and as an org, they're gone.

    they didn't embrace the internet when they had the chance, now it's too late.
  18. CowboyJeff

    CowboyJeff New Member

    1,905 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That was the single worst piece of legislation during the Clinton Administration, IMHO.
  19. iceberg

    iceberg winter??? RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!! Zone Supporter

    29,988 Messages
    2,827 Likes Received
    as much as i *hate* clinton (no! right!) this was not just him. i fully agree there has to be some form of control and payout for the artists. however, the way the RIAA tried to do it was to kill competition and i think congress simply 'rubber stamped' it and moved on. the riaa had the infrastructure to pull it off and were given the right to do so. i'm *not* sure congress or clinton or anyone outside the RIAA (way outside the riaa actually) felt they'd take it as far as they did, and are trying to do.

    it basically gave control over digital music to a company / organization who's sole purpose is to avoid it.
  20. CowboyJeff

    CowboyJeff New Member

    1,905 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    You're right, but Clinton never vetoed the legislation when it came to his desk.

Share This Page