RIAA = Music Gestapo?

[champu 1]

Quote

You can legally rip a CD or DVD (assuming it's not encrypted) to *any* personal listening/viewing device or media for your own use.

This reminds me of the [not necessarily so] pathological scenario created by the DMCA a while back, whereby if you had a Sharpie(tm) in your drawer that you used to mark up a CD before putting it in your computer (so it wouldn't break your computer, and so you could even listen to it at all... not even rip it or anything) then you were breaking the law, the guy who posted the website explaining how to do it was breaking the law, and continued possession of the Sharpie(tm) was illegal as well as it was a "tool used to circumvent copyright protection on a recorded medium."

Stopping copyright infringement is a difficult task just like, by your analogy, getting everyone to drive the speed limit would be a difficult task. Large record companies want a "speeding tax" included in the price of all gasoline, tires, windshield washer fluid, motor oil, air filters, and car washing services. They want cars implanted with an additional computer that runs off the engine eating 50 horsepower that measures the speed at all times, and looks back into the history of the car to see if it ever was ever speeding, and to send all that information back to their privately owned servers. (and occasionally the computer crashes rendering the car inoperable.) They want the act of tampering with the computer (as one might be tempted to do because it's an enormous pain in the ass, and was terribly thought out) to be illegal, even if you don't speed after doing so.

[DSE 5]

You go right ahead and continue to believe that showing a copyrighted video to 300 people in any setting is in line with the Home Viewing License. Me...I can't wait til the Tooth Fairy brings my new wingsuit.

As for the rest, well...sure. Change will eventually happen. That's life. But at any meaningful level, change is certainly not in the air. EFF and Copyleft? meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Any Earl Scheib attorney can do what EFF does.

Quote

Providers are down on DRM as well. Apple is pressuring its labels to remove DRM from their content,

Apple doesn't own any labels to pressure. Steve Jobs is taking credit for some labels removing DRM, good for him. Interesting he has a double standard when it comes to DRM for video.

Either way, it sickens me to the core to read that you condone theft, copyright abuse, and are one of those looking for every corner in which the artist may be screwed.

The horse is starting to look pretty ragged at this point.

[Remster 30]

relevant bit on NPR from last week.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17846588

Remster

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Nope. You can play it at any private assembly of people, even if you do not buy a license for everyone who sees it, provided you do not charge for it. Doesn't matter if it's you and your wife, or you, your wife and 300 other people. (Provided there is no compensation for it, of course.) As an example, I can play the HD "Planet Earth" series of DVD's at a barbecue I have at my house.

If, of course, you have a "Warren Miller block party" and charge people to get in to see Warren Miller films - then you have to pay royalties.

Wasn't there a very similar case last year where a church in Indiana wanted to show the Super Bowl and the NFL sought an injunction to prevent it from happening...and were successful?

[billvon 3,121]

>I can't wait til the Tooth Fairy brings my new wingsuit.

Being juvenile doesn't advance the discussion much.

>But at any meaningful level, change is certainly not in the air.

Well:

1) Record companies are giving up on DRM because it doesn't work. That's a very big step, and an admission that maintaining control of a copy of a property does not work.

2) Digital sharing is, in fact, taking a big chunk out of traditional album sales. That's a big change.

3) There is a lot of music out there that is, in fact, free, given away by bands who feel the free exposure is worth more to them than the royalties on the (fewer) copies they could sell.

>Either way, it sickens me to the core to read that you condone theft,
> copyright abuse, and are one of those looking for every corner in which
>the artist may be screwed.

I don't. I look forward to the day when we switch to a new system that avoids all the growing and intractable problems involved with a record company trying to control every copy of every song they sell.

[billvon 3,121]

>Wasn't there a very similar case last year where a church in
>Indiana wanted to show the Super Bowl and the NFL sought an injunction
>to prevent it from happening...and were successful?

Yep! Again, a commercial use by an organization (even if only for donations) is proscribed.

[normiss 900]

EVERY sector of media today (film, radio, tv, music) was born of piracy. Only today do we not welcome the next generation. I think we should thank the lawyers for that.
Film moved to Cali to excape Edison's patents, similar story for recorded music, cable tv hijacked free signals to redistribute to paying customers and the companies that owned the content refused to pay the fees and sued, and today..all media is redistributed in a myriad of technolgical methods, even from the owners.
It will change.
At issue is when...and how.
Even artists that own the material are objecting to the methods used to attack their customers. At least some of the good ones are....

[DSE 5]

yup, but this is a different discussion.
You cannot legally show a copyrighted DVD at a block party, church, tavern, it's all spelled out in previous posts. You cannot legally decide to have 300 of your closest friends come over to your backyard on which you show any copyrighted work. That violates the Home Viewing License.
Bill thinks otherwise, Bill is wrong.

I realize you think my point is juvenile, Bill, and I feel the same way about your position (actually, "juvenile" isn't quite the descriptor I'd use).

Quote

As an example, I can play the HD "Planet Earth" series of DVD's at a barbecue I have at my house.

Not if it's the 300 friends that you referenced earlier. Not legally.
If it makes you feel better to continue to split hairs, that's fine. My concession is, and has been throughout this thread, that for the level of discussion this thread represents, these infringements are similar to speeding. That's about it. But speeding *is* illegal.

Reading you on copyright is about as valueless as me lecturing you on wingloading and oxygen for HALO jumps. However, I can recognize and admit when I'm wrong. And often do. This isn't one of those times.

[normiss]

Quote

Even artists that own the material are objecting to the methods used to attack their customers.

Well...given that I'm not happy with how some of the industry has done what they have ie; BMG and rootkits, RIAA's lawsuits against little kids, etc. I do believe in punitive damages for people that upload content. I don't have the same hard-on for those that download the content, although that is just as wrong.

[billvon 3,121]

>I realize you think my point is juvenile

I think your point is quite valid. Comparing my points to the tooth fairy is juvenile. I would not compare yours to fascism.

>Not if it's the 300 friends that you referenced earlier. Not legally.

The links that you yourself have provided so far show it IS legal. From your own post:

"no license is required to view a movie, such as inside the home by family or social acquaintances. . . "

Do you have another reference that indicates that statement is incorrect?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No kidding. If the RIAA were run by the US government like OPEC is run by its respective governments, we'd be paying 100.00 for a CD/DVD.

No, we wouldn't. You keep thinking the industry is in charge of this market dynamic. It's also not very productive to keep viewing this emotionally.

If albums were selling for $100, no one would be buying them. They'd be buying guitars and keyboards and making their own music, just as millions do already.

Oil isn't nearly so easily replaced.

[normiss 900]

bingo.
I didn't buy VHS when they were $80-$100 each, nor do I buy DVD's at $20 a piece.
I personally don't need to have them...I have TV, cable, DVR, Netflix, MP3's, and the internet....I don't have the time for much more.
Anything I want to see or hear is damn near available instantly.
Welcome to the future of content.

[TheBachelor 5]

It seems that what the RIAA was saying was illegal was that Howell ripped the CD's, then put them in a Kazaa folder for sharing. Just ripping them is not illegal. See this link: http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/a_cautious_mea_culpa_to_the_riaa_1.html?kc=EWKNLEND010408STR1

I've seen a couple other sites that make the same correction.

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[murrays 0]

Even though I started this thread and kind of hate to revive it, this Daily Mash post titled "CONSUMERS VOW TO REMAIN OBLIVIOUS TO MUSIC COPYING LAWS" is too funny not to post.

--
Murray

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

[Guest]

Quote

You go right ahead and continue to believe that showing a copyrighted video to 300 people in any setting is in line with the Home Viewing License. Me...I can't wait til the Tooth Fairy brings my new wingsuit.

As for the rest, well...sure. Change will eventually happen. That's life. But at any meaningful level, change is certainly not in the air. EFF and Copyleft? meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Any Earl Scheib attorney can do what EFF does.

Quote

Providers are down on DRM as well. Apple is pressuring its labels to remove DRM from their content,

Apple doesn't own any labels to pressure. Steve Jobs is taking credit for some labels removing DRM, good for him. Interesting he has a double standard when it comes to DRM for video.

Either way, it sickens me to the core to read that you condone theft, copyright abuse, and are one of those looking for every corner in which the artist may be screwed.

The horse is starting to look pretty ragged at this point.

RIAA's certainly is.

They had a monopoly when they controlled the entire chain from start to finish. Now the chain is broken. They cannot control creation or distribution, not even promotion, as the artists can do this themselves.

Witness the hypocritical band Metallica, which in their salad days encouraged people to bootleg their recordings, just like the Dead did.

However, once they made it and were big, they turned around and sued their fans for piracy.

RIAA's on the way out, and they don't like it. Suing children isn't going to help, not change things.

Good riddance.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[DSE 5]

Quote

They had a monopoly when they controlled the entire chain from start to finish. Now the chain is broken. They cannot control creation or distribution, not even promotion, as the artists can do this themselves.

Are totally oblivious to the process, or just a little oblivious to the process?

RIAA is going nowhere, but since you don't understand the way the industry works, you likely won't understand that, either. The dynamic likely will change, but the organization going away? Not in your great-grandchildren's lifetime.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not in your great-grandchildren's lifetime.

No organization is guaranteed to be relevant or existing in a 100 years. Especially not the retarded ones. It could be replaced by an alternate body much much sooner.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Not in your great-grandchildren's lifetime.

No organization is guaranteed to be relevant or existing in a 100 years. Especially not the retarded ones. It could be replaced by an alternate body much much sooner.

See my response above.

[kelpdiver 2]

and see mine. Your's is an industry of piano tuners with their heads in the sand. And you in particular are far too emotional about it to figure out how to evolve.

I'm not sure it's a solveable problem, but I do know the current approach certainly will fail.

[DSE 5]

Can we agree there will *always* be recording artists?
Can we agree that recording artists will *always* want an association? I mean hell, even garbage collectors have associations.

Therefore, there will always be an RIAA/Recording Industry Association.

next on the list; What the RIAA "controls."
they "control" nothing. Artists have two options for recording, marketing, delivering music for/to the masses.
~through a record label, whether it's an indie or major

~Self-published, whether with a collective or self-managed.

Am I missing one? I don't think so.
RIAA "controls" neither of those two scenarios. Either an artist goes SEEKING a major or independent record deal, or they don't. Their choice.

Just curious, who in this community has ever signed a recording deal with any record label that is a member of the RIAA and therefore understands the process?
I'm not too close to it, I merely understand it. I understand it perfectly. I understand that as an artist, I have a choice as to how I fund my recordings, how I have my recordings manufactured on a mass scale, how my recordings are distributed, and where they are distributed geographically. I don't have much control over price of those recordings if they're made for the general consumer. I have tremendous control over the price of those recordings if they're made for television, big screen, corporate, or closed-distribution.
Given that I'm both a self-distributed artist and a major label distributed artist, and given that I have commercial albums distributed to the consumer in addition to the television, theatrical, corporate, and closed distribution markets, which part don't I understand?
Which part of MY industry in which I live, breathe, derive my income from am I "too close to" as opposed to anyone else?

What "current approach?" RIAA will continue to sue individuals, people will continue to pirate, piracy will diminish in certain quarters, piracy will flourish in other quarters. RIAA will try to stop it where they can, musicians will try (on the whole) to stop it where they can, certain elements of society will attempt to thwart any efforts to stop it where they can. The RIAA is merely the wall of the castle representing the artists who have chosen to live inside the castle. There will *always* be someone trying to scale or knock over that wall.
But the RIAA doesn't "control" those artists, nor their distribution, nor their listeners. It merely tries to protect those that have "asked" for protection by signing with an RIAA-member label. And that "asking" hasn't slowed down at all. The typical musician's dream is a major label deal, even if it's not in their best interests.
Will the direction the RIAA change? Of course. It's dynamic. If it doesn't change, it'll die. They're already changing, but you're not on the inside seeing those changes. Does the average tandem student perceive changes in USPA BSRs or rating requirements?

It's not terribly different than saying the USPA "controls" the world of skydiving. Dropzones and skydivers may choose to be members or not. Guarantees and expectations may or may not be different at various DZ's because of or lack of affiliation with the USPA.

HERE is a band that should easily make it on their own via self-promotion and distribution, but they're vying for a major record deal. It's the dream. It's what the bulk of performing musicians are still looking for.
On the other hand, I'd never expect a "whuffo" to understand it.
(whuffo' they want a major record deal, I think they're pretty good?)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Can we agree there will *always* be recording artists?
Can we agree that recording artists will *always* want an association? I mean hell, even garbage collectors have associations.

Therefore, there will always be an RIAA/Recording Industry Association.

Well, geez, saying there will always be something out there isn't a big leap. But the RIAA - very unlikely to survive that long. I'd be surprised if it is still relevent in 20 years.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Can we agree there will *always* be recording artists?
Can we agree that recording artists will *always* want an association? I mean hell, even garbage collectors have associations.

Therefore, there will always be an RIAA/Recording Industry Association.

Well, geez, saying there will always be something out there isn't a big leap. But the RIAA - very unlikely to survive that long. I'd be surprised if it is still relevent in 20 years.

Why is it "unlikely" that they'll be there that long? I've provided fairly specific reasons as to why they will be, it's easy to glibly say "they won't be."
Demonstrate why, please?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Will the direction the RIAA change? Of course. It's dynamic. If it doesn't change, it'll die. They're already changing, but you're not on the inside seeing those changes.

If the only change going on is so secret that only insiders know about it, it's not enough change to avoid death. The combination of lawsuits and crappy DRM isn't a winning answer.

Someone else will come up with a new paradigm, artists will flock to it, and RIAA will fade away.

[DSE 5]

Again....you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
RIAA isn't responsible for DRM. AT ALL.
The labels who are members of RIAA are responsible.
USPA is responsible for skydivers hooking in every week, and that's stupid. The USPA must die, because skydivers will flock to a new paradigm that won't support hook turns.
Neither of those sentences take DZ's into account at all.
The RIAA never has, and cannot mandate, control, remove, inspire, recommend, offer, develop, destroy DRM. Period.
What they can do, is as an organization of labels, sue to recover damages that spread across labels. Much like how the USPA lobbies and complains to the FAA about how government affects skydiving.
There is no "secret change" going on inside. Become a member, get the magazine and newsletter. Sign a record deal, you'll know everything there is to know.
Attend a conference (you don't need to be a member) and you'll get most of what you want to know.
It's a lot more open than the USPA, that's for sure.

[billvon 3,121]

> Can we agree there will *always* be recording artists?
>Can we agree that recording artists will *always* want an association?
>I mean hell, even garbage collectors have associations.

Quite true. However, if a garbage collector's organization dealt more with humane treatment of the horses used for hauling trash, and did not address issues involved with driving trash trucks, it would rapidly be superseded by another organization that dealt with modern trash collecting. Today in our neighborhood, a single trash collector drives a robotic truck around and picks up garbage. That's pretty radically different than the horse-drawn trash carts of a century ago.

Is it a tragedy that the people who cared for the horses, who drove the carts, who picked up the trash and who shoveled it out of the carts, have lost their jobs? Is it a travesty that a machine now replaces half a dozen people? Perhaps. But that happened because technology made such extra jobs non-valuable. The associations adapted.

Likewise, I have a feeling RIAA (or more accurately its successors) will adapt to a world in which free exchange of information is the rule rather than the exception.

[DSE 5]

Quote

> Can we agree there will *always* be recording artists?
>Can we agree that recording artists will *always* want an association?
>I mean hell, even garbage collectors have associations.

Quite true. However, if a garbage collector's organization dealt more with humane treatment of the horses used for hauling trash, and did not address issues involved with driving trash trucks, it would rapidly be superseded by another organization that dealt with modern trash collecting. Today in our neighborhood, a single trash collector drives a robotic truck around and picks up garbage. That's pretty radically different than the horse-drawn trash carts of a century ago.

Is it a tragedy that the people who cared for the horses, who drove the carts, who picked up the trash and who shoveled it out of the carts, have lost their jobs? Is it a travesty that a machine now replaces half a dozen people? Perhaps. But that happened because technology made such extra jobs non-valuable. The associations adapted.

Likewise, I have a feeling RIAA (or more accurately its successors) will adapt to a world in which free exchange of information is the rule rather than the exception.

And your analogy relates ?how?

The methods used to record music have changed, but artists have not. Artists are artists.
The RIAA has zero to do with freely exchanged information. Either labels collectively decide to go after pirates, or they don't. If they do, then they sic their representative organization on them (RIAA). That is but one VERY small facet of what the RIAA does.
Christ, I feel like I'm an apologist for the RIAA, which is far from my intent. But the level of ignorance about what the RIAA actually is, is ridiculously high. I'm surprised that so many folks have an opinion on something about which they are ENTIRELY, utterly clueless. It's like reading the rants of illiterate fourth-graders arguing Einstein's theory of relativity and it's implications on the color of green found in bottleflies.