RIAA = Music Gestapo?

[murrays 0]

We all know about the RIAA suing thousands of people for downloading music and sharing music on P2P networks, etc.

Now, according to this Washington Post article the RIAA is saying that ripping CDs you OWN and transferring the digital files to a computer or iPod/MP3 player is copyright infringement and illegal.

These guys have gone completely nuts as far as I am concerned. I buy mostly CDs and they are read once as I rip them to transfer to my iPod. Then, they serve as my hard copy backup. If they are going to pursue this, I am going to quit buying music in any shape or form.

Time to write to our politicians and stop the music Gestapo!

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[RALFFERS 0]

I couldn't agree with you more - this is total bullshit!

Not even Walt could create a bigger turd than this

Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself -

"from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of

[shropshire 0]

Well, the courts are going to be VERY busy then, because EVERYONE who owns an MP3 player, at the very least RIPs their own CDs - These folks haven't thought this through to well, have they?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[RALFFERS 0]

They're just money hungry, greedy bastards!

Edited for grammar.

Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself -

"from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Damn, if they keep going pretty soon you won't even be able to play the CDs you buy at the store. Stupid Fuckers!!! ( I hope none are users here)

Just imagine how nice your music collection will be when you don't take them out to play them anymore.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Well, the courts are going to be VERY busy then, because EVERYONE who owns an MP3 player, at the very least RIPs their own CDs - These folks haven't thought this through to well, have they?

Oh I'm sure they have thought it through. My bet is they will be going after some kind of music tax to go with every MP3 player or Ipod that is sold.

[shropshire 0]

May be, but best they move jolly fast, because there are millions of they in 'our' hands already.... and that tax will only work if a very small geogrtaphic area.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[PhreeZone 20]

That happened a few years back when the industry was trying out some anti-copying techniques (I think the method that they tried was the Catus Anti-Piracy) and ended up putting out a few albums that just wouldn't play on CD players older then a couple of years old. It renendered thousands of disks as junk for car CD players and such. They ended up rereleasing the album with out the protection and exchanging it to anyone that had a copy that wouldn't play.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Oh I'm sure they have thought it through. My bet is they will be going after some kind of music tax to go with every MP3 player or Ipod that is sold

They did something simular with Cassettes. There was a "Tax" paid on every Blank Cassette that was sold based on some formula that assumed that a certian percentage of blank cassettes would be used to copy music.
The problem thay have now is that there is no way they can do that tax on Hard drives.

Funny true story..
A while back was at a Stip club in San Francisco with several other DZ dot commers and 3/4 of Metallica came in. At some point Kirk Hammett ended up talking to us. One of the guys with us says to him "I am huge fan, I have everything you ever recorded. I downloaded it ALL off Napster."

[waltappel 1]

I can see both sides of it. (I can also see this thread heading toward Speakers Corner)

The music industry has been out of control for a long time but is just now starting to fuck consumers over in a very overt and public way. They've been fucking musicians over for years.

On the other hand, they produce a product and have every right to expect to be paid for it. It seems they have a hard time dealing with the idea that consumers have more choices now, though. Instead of having to buy CDs that have one or two songs we like and a bunch of "filler songs" we can now get only the songs we want. That's great for consumers but it has blown away a big chunk of their leverage against consumers and that's something they don't want to give up.

Walt

[Halfpastniner 0]

I can see the argument for smaller bands that dont have a lot of revenue, but i think that the bigger bands (like metallica) should really quit complaining about their stuff being downloaded. Bands like that have to make plenty of money on tour, and through royalties.

BASE 1384

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I can see the argument for smaller bands that dont have a lot of revenue, but i think that the bigger bands (like metallica) should really quit complaining about their stuff being downloaded. Bands like that have to make plenty of money on tour, and through royalties.

It depends on the contracts they have with the promoters, record companies, etc. They may not be making all that much.

Walt

[CSpenceFLY 1]

If I bought a CD they got paid. As long as I don't make copies and give them away or sell them it is none of their business how I listen to that music.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

I can see the argument for smaller bands that dont have a lot of revenue, but i think that the bigger bands (like metallica) should really quit complaining about their stuff being downloaded. Bands like that have to make plenty of money on tour, and through royalties.

It depends on the contracts they have with the promoters, record companies, etc. They may not be making all that much.

Walt

That is true. Many musicians over the years have gotten their eyeballs fucked out by the music industry. It's kind of funny when you think about it, they are relying on the industry that has screwed them to make sure they get paid and trying to screw the customers that have made them what they are.

[RALFFERS 0]

Quote

I can see the argument for smaller bands that dont have a lot of revenue, but i think that the bigger bands (like metallica) should really quit complaining about their stuff being downloaded. Bands like that have to make plenty of money on tour, and through royalties.

Agreed, but we're talking about music you already, which means royalty/revenue have been paid and whatnot.

I buy all my music through ITunes and will be damned if I can't put it on an Ipod - WTF? Not only that, but all of sudden there wouldn't be much need/use of MP3 players, consequently a lot of companies would be losing big bucks that way and thus not happy. This will never pass. How shall I say RIAA=fucktards

Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself -

"from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of

[Halfpastniner 0]

Yeah, making it illegal to rip cd's is definatly retarded. and you know their just gonna bust one poor kid (probably me) so they can make an example out of him for everyone else. Lame.

BASE 1384

[waltappel 1]

Quote

That is true. Many musicians over the years have gotten their eyeballs fucked out by the music industry. It's kind of funny when you think about it, they are relying on the industry that has screwed them to make sure they get paid and trying to screw the customers that have made them what they are.

There's plenty of guilt to go around but I have the impression that the musicians/performers are generally getting the short end of the stick. For example, if I recall correctly, songwriters get royalties based on how often their songs are performed publicly--either "live" or broadcast. The person(s) performing the songs get paid simply by the number of CDs they sell or concert tickets sold.

In that equation, I'd *much* prefer being the songwriter.

Walt

[shropshire 0]

<>

As it should be... with the actual talent.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DSE 5]

Same tax was originally applied to blank CD's, too, but then it was apparent that more blank CD's were being purchased for data storage than for music copies.

The cited article is flawed, and takes statements from the RIAA website out of context. The very next paragraph to the one cited in the article is:
"Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That’s bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next generation of talent. "

In other words, the RIAA doesn't care if you archive/ time-shift your CD collection to your iPod or MP3 player. It's when you give copies of that music to your buddies that it becomes an issue.
One of my best friends is an RIAA investigator that specifically targets the University of Utah, Westminster College, and Brigham Young University. She spends most of her time monitoring the university downloads and torrent site logs, because that is where they're seeing the hurtful trends. It's not illegal to rip a CD. If it were, Microsoft would have been sued long ago for enabling you do do so in their media player. The music industry WANTS people to listen to music on our iPods, Zune's, and other portable devices. What they don't want (and rightfully so), are file-sharing and illegal downloads through Kazaa, Gnutella, etc.
In short the Post article is mostly a sensational piece of fluff and FUD.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

<>

As it should be... with the actual talent.

I don't think that's fair. I think it takes plenty of talent to play a song someone else wrote or, even better, for someone to take a song and make it their own by putting their own flavor into it.

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Well I'm sure your thoughtful response is going to be about as popular as a turd in a punchbowl but be that as it may, there is *no* denying that the RIAA is trying to create a climate of fear among consumers by making examples out of people in a very heavy-handed way.

Music will continue to exist just fine without those assholes. In fact I think it would benefit music quite a bit if the existing industry dissolved.

Walt

[shropshire 0]

The truely talented are the ones that perform their own stuff. So many others are reproduced every weekend in many clubs across the world - good singers maybe but just singers.. There are countless thousand that do equally well but aren't lucky enough to be thrust into the limelight... and also countless mediocre, jumped up ones on our radios.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DSE 5]

Quote

Well I'm sure your thoughtful response is going to be about as popular as a turd in a punchbowl but be that as it may, there is *no* denying that the RIAA is trying to create a climate of fear among consumers by making examples out of people in a very heavy-handed way.

Music will continue to exist just fine without those assholes. In fact I think it would benefit music quite a bit if the existing industry dissolved.

Walt

I'm sure it isn't a popular response. The RIAA isn't going to be popular with music buyers for similar reasons that the USPA isn't popular with a lot of skydivers.
I agree, the RIAA has created a sense of fear in many people. I'm a member of RIAA, and embarassed/disappointed in their messaging and delivery. But the truth is, no one at the RIAA is going after (and never will likely go after) anyone for copying a CD to their MP3 player, because doing so is an authorized copy. Unauthorized copies are passing those songs to friends. Imagine the uproar if you could create a digital copy of a physical object such as a rig, candybar, or vehicle, and pass it along to a friend. Can't be done, but the exact same principles and laws do, and should apply. Software manufacturers are doing the exact same things the RIAA is doing, as are visual media providers. No one is as up in arms about it.
Do you feel it's OK to buy a CD and make copies of it to give to your friends? Do you feel it's OK to walk into a 7-11 and steal a handful of candy bars to hand out to your buddies? the only difference is the likelihood of being caught.
I do agree with making examples out of anyone who has been downloading music. Such as the bitch cited in the Post article. The article fails to mention that she'd been notified in writing on four occasions, and that after she'd been served, she attempted to erase her HDD of all the media she'd illegally downloaded and bragged online about, and sent literally thousands of links to friends for. It wasn't just an arbitrary "Let's go after this chick." She was given opportunity to deal with it. She said "F*** you" to the copyright holders via the RIAA.

No, music *won't* continue to exist just fine without the RIAA. Another organization will step in to fill their shoes, and likely have their guns even better loaded. The RIAA is merely a collective of the various record labels and publishers (of which several represent me and my interests as a recording artist). They're needed in Washington and international forums, as individual labels, especially the smaller ones, can't afford to stand on their own.
~Nothing is illegal about buying downloadable music.
~Nothing illegal about ripping your own CD's to your MP3 player or computer library.
~Nothing illegal about handing your headphones to a friend and saying "Hey, check this out."

It becomes a problem when one song is purchased, copies are made, and that one paid-for song may be listened to on multiple devices at the same time by multiple individuals.

The existing industry is dissolving, and quickly. And fewer and fewer new artists are making it out of the mess as a result. Artists don't enjoy long life-spans anymore either, as A&R funds are practically gone. And all of that is OK, so long as artists can be paid for their work. Once my contract with Virgin is up, I'll likely not go back to a label deal again, but rather do something along the lines of Broadjam or Weed. but I'm very grateful that my label and publisher have been there to protect, negotiate, and obtain revenue on my behalf.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

No, music *won't* continue to exist just fine without the RIAA. Another organization will step in to fill their shoes, and likely have their guns even better loaded.

Music existed well before the technology to record it did and now that the technology to produce and distribute music is accessible and affordable to the individual musican, I think if the music industry suddenly dissolved, then the industry would be given the opportunity to *evolve* rather than being kept from evolving by those who fear being made irrelevant by that evolution.

I think there would be an explosion of new music to the point where consumers would be overwhelmed by the volume of choices instead of choices being limited by music that fits within the marketing plans of the big record companies.

The RIAA is somewhat reminiscent of something that happened when synthesizers were introduced that could realistically produce sounds that previously required orchestras to create. Musicians' unions, suddenly faced with the possibility of seeing work evaporate for many of their members fought like hell to *require* labels to use their members rather than synthesizers.

To me the RIAA is symptomatic of a desperate music industry that has become way out of touch with its consumers.

Walt

[murrays 0]

Quote

[
~Nothing illegal about ripping your own CD's to your MP3 player or computer library.

DSE,

The verbiage in the Post article contradicts what you have just stated (your statement is what I have always assumed to be true):

"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.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

I truly hope that you are correct and that the RIAA is not going to try and proceed as the article indicates.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey