NationStates Jolt Archive

In a clever and calculated move by the RIAA designed to stop piracy, they have decided to sic their legal pit bulls on people who store copies of their legally bought CDs in digital format on their own computers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Apparently by storing a personal copy of your legally bought, physical CDs on your computer's harddrive, you are making unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material controlled by those fucking fascists dicks.. I mean hard-working egalitarians at the RIAA.


At this point, almost anything you do that isn't buying a CD and playing it on a CD player that doesn't support mp3 CDs is being argued as illegal by the RIAA. This is the best argument for piracy yet. If doing something so innocent and dismissible as this is going to get you sued for infringing copyrights, you might as well just pirate the music you want and actually give them something to sue you for.

This can't be seriously happening? If they are going to continue to reduce what we can and can't do with their music, then as we lose things, they should come out of the overinflated price.

I can see where SHARING music is illegal, but I thought that you were ALWAYS allowed to make one or two copies for STRICTLY PERSONAL USE. (for instance, I buy the CD, I put the files on my computer, I put the file subsequently into my iPod. I'm still the only person using it.)

Has this changed? Are iPods now, essentially, useless unless you purchase a copy for every player you own?

Has this changed? Are iPods now, essentially, useless unless you purchase a copy for every player you own?

I think we've stumbled onto RIAA's ultimate goal.

I can see where SHARING music is illegal, but I thought that you were ALWAYS allowed to make one or two copies for STRICTLY PERSONAL USE. (for instance, I buy the CD, I put the files on my computer, I put the file subsequently into my iPod. I'm still the only person using it.)

Has this changed? Are iPods now, essentially, useless unless you purchase a copy for every player you own?

As I understand it, you in the USA have fair use, but it's up to you to prove that fair use applies when they sue you. It's not some kind of clearly defined legal right you have. Another thing is that even if fair use does apply, if the CDs are copy protected the DMCA comes into play, which makes it illegal to bypass that protection.

I can see where SHARING music is illegal, but I thought that you were ALWAYS allowed to make one or two copies for STRICTLY PERSONAL USE. (for instance, I buy the CD, I put the files on my computer, I put the file subsequently into my iPod. I'm still the only person using it.)

Has this changed? Are iPods now, essentially, useless unless you purchase a copy for every player you own?
It never changed, I looked through the copyright law, and, despite not speaking legalese and having a short attention span, I saw nothing that said you could make a single, personal use copy of audiovisual copyrighted material. In fact, I found a section that said that any reproduction of audiovisual copyrighted material is solely up to the copyright holder. They have just never enforced or pursued this absurd argument before so no one thought anything about it, especially since you can make a single personal copy of any other copyrighted material.

It never changed, I looked through the copyright law, and, despite not speaking legalese and having a short attention span, I saw nothing that said you could make a single, personal use copy of audiovisual copyrighted material. In fact, I found a section that said that any reproduction of audiovisual copyrighted material is solely up to the copyright holder. They have just never enforced or pursued this absurd argument before so no one thought anything about it, especially since you can make a single personal copy of any other copyrighted material.

Even computer programs have said (at least the last time I looked) you were able to make ONE archival copy in case anything happened to the one you were using.

I suppose what this means is that your copy of iTunes should be on a machine you're never going to connect to the 'net.
Disgusting.

A) EDIT: Nah, TPH is probably right about audiovisual property, but question B stands.

B) How will they know if I make personal copies of my CDs and store them on my computer?

2nd EDIT: C) If they're so damned worked up about this, why don't they just make CDs not copy-able and then sort that out in court with people like Apple, who have contracts with recording companies allowing people to use iTunes? You know, and after that, deal with declaring bankruptcy as their entire industry collapses.

*raises eyebrow*

I am not allowed to make backups in the USA ?

accidentally I decided to start ripping my CD-collection to my laptop today. Has the RIAA jurisdiction in Belgium?

*raises eyebrow*

I am not allowed to make backups in the USA ?

You arn't even allowed to buy CDs in the US because it can be construed that you might put them on your computer and transfer their contents digitally. Well, not within a year anyway.

accidentally I decided to start ripping my CD-collection to my laptop today. Has the RIAA jurisdiction in Belgium?
Not unless the Belgium government has deals with the US to enforce US copyright laws in Belgium and you better hope that's not the case because you just admitted to unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted materials.

You arn't even allowed to buy CDs in the US because it can be construed that you might put them on your computer and transfer their contents digitally. Well, not within a year anyway.
<snip>
What do you mean, you can't buy CDs in the US?

A) EDIT: Nah, TPH is probably right about audiovisual property, but question B stands.

B) How will they know if I make personal copies of my CDs and store them on my computer?

2nd EDIT: C) If they're so damned worked up about this, why don't they just make CDs not copy-able and then sort that out in court with people like Apple, who have contracts with recording companies allowing people to use iTunes? You know, and after that, deal with declaring bankruptcy as their entire industry collapses.

The answer to question B is that they never could. It's just that these activities have been ignored up until now.

As for your own B, the reason they knew about this guy is because he shared his songs on some p2p network, a detail I think the article left out. It's still interesting that the RIAA isn't just going after him for making songs available, but for actually ripping his own CDs.

And C, the CD standard doesn't actually allow for any copy protection, but the labels have experimented with many types of protection. None of it has worked, of course. As long as a CD can be played it can be ripped; even the most impossibly perfect copy protection would still have to allow music to play through the speakers, where it can simply be recorded again.

Well I honestly doubt that they are going to keep this stunt up for long. Imagine how expensive it must be to employ enough legal teams to convict a significant proportion of those that do this. Thats simply because nearly everyone who owns a computer these days DOES keep several copies. One on the CD you buy in the first place, one on your computer, one on your iPod/MP3 player and possibly another on your phone. Hell, thats what I do :D Then again, I don't have to worry about it because I'm in Britain, where the law is still vaguely sensible when it comes to the whole 'suing' thing.

What do you mean, you can't buy CDs in the US?
I am exaggerating using a slippery slope argument based on the fact that they are going after people who copy their legally bought CDs on their computer without any intention, or possibly ability, to transfer it anywhere else.

from the article (emphasis added)
But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

These idiots are wasting their time and killiing their own business. The internet makes it possible for independent labels to do ALL of their business online -- even the artists themselves could become their own distributors -- selling music as per-title downloads. Why should anyone continue to buy from these RIAA companies? By trying to clamp down and repress change, they only hasten it and their own ends, if they don't get onboard. Seeing the way the technology is going, and the problems being caused by RIAA tactics, I certainly would not buy stock in any of these companies at the moment.

The answer to question B is that they never could. It's just that these activities have been ignored up until now.

As for your own B, the reason they knew about this guy is because he shared his songs on some p2p network, a detail I think the article left out. It's still interesting that the RIAA isn't just going after him for making songs available, but for actually ripping his own CDs.

And C, the CD standard doesn't actually allow for any copy protection, but the labels have experimented with many types of protection. None of it has worked, of course. As long as a CD can be played it can be ripped; even the most impossibly perfect copy protection would still have to allow music to play through the speakers, where it can simply be recorded again.
I see. So in other words, they are just making empty threats in an attempt to intimidate the public, and every now and then spending lots of money to try to make an example out of a randomly chosen victim. I kind of thought so.

And basically, the easiest way to avoid their little traps is not to share music online but do it the way it was done before the internet, when we just has things like cassette tapes.

I am exaggerating using a slippery slope argument based on the fact that they are going after people who copy their legally bought CDs on their computer without any intention, or possibly ability, to transfer it anywhere else.
Oh, I get it. I thought you had gone over the deep end there for a minute. ;)

Yes, it is technically illegal to make any copy what-so ever of anything copyrighted, regardless of it's use afterwards (i.e. it is not an excuse to make a copy for personal use).

As for the iPod question, the whole idea is that you cannot transfer music from any CDs you own to an Ipod because you are making an unauthorised copy of that CD. You are supposed to buy the licence for that copy of the song when you buy the tunes from iTunes - which is the only legal way to put songs on an iPod.

That being said, it just occurred to me that you aren't technically copying anything when ripping a CD/DVD etc. because mp3s use different binary codes to represent sounds than CD tracks. As such, it can be argued, that ripping a CD track to mp3 is no more a making of an unauthorised copy of said track than recording yourself singing said song. Yes, you are emulating content but you are not making an identical reproduction of either logical representation method or indeed content, to which the law applies. Therefore the RIAA can go fuck itself.

Yes, it is technically illegal to make any copy what-so ever of anything copyrighted, regardless of it's use afterwards (i.e. it is not an excuse to make a copy for personal use).

In certain countries. Just to be complete.

In certain countries. Just to be complete.

Well, when it says on the CD that "the content of this cd is the sole property of X which retains all copyright privileges. your license only allows you, and only you, to use the contents" it means you cannot copy it legally, whatever country you are in.

Well, when it says on the CD that "the content of this cd is the sole property of X which retains all copyright privileges. your license only allows you, and only you, to use the contents" it means you cannot copy it legally, whatever country you are in.

Incorrect. Dutch law for instance explicitly allows you to make a backup.

That being said, it just occurred to me that you aren't technically copying anything when ripping a CD/DVD etc. because mp3s use different binary codes to represent sounds than CD tracks. As such, it can be argued, that ripping a CD track to mp3 is no more a making of an unauthorised copy of said track than recording yourself singing said song. Yes, you are emulating content but you are not making an identical reproduction of either logical representation method or indeed content, to which the law applies. Therefore the RIAA can go fuck itself.

That's not how intellectual property works. If it was, you wouldn't owe royalties when you covered songs.

Well, sucks to be you guys.

That's not how intellectual property works. If it was, you wouldn't owe royalties when you covered songs.

It is intellectual property because the representation methods are actually logical, not physical. If you copy a painting (as long as you don't try to sell it as if it were the original) do you have to pay royalties?

Maybe I should form my own country.

:) But RIAA companies do not export to countries whose copyright laws aren't at least 3/4 as fascist.

Maybe I should form my own country.

Well, with my thousands of torrents, I'm feeling like a rebel over here, anybody got a spare Che shirt?

:) But RIAA companies do not export to countries whose copyright laws aren't at least 3/4 as fascist.

Feck them. I order from Amazon.

Feck them. I order from Amazon.

*cough* It is illegal for Amazon to export to your country.:)

Maybe I should form my own country.

Maybe you should just listen to music under saner licenses, which explicitly permit sharing, like the CreativeCommons (http://www.creativecommons.org)-licenses.
These idiots are wasting their time and killiing their own business. The internet makes it possible for independent labels to do ALL of their business online -- even the artists themselves could become their own distributors -- selling music as per-title downloads. Why should anyone continue to buy from these RIAA companies? By trying to clamp down and repress change, they only hasten it and their own ends, if they don't get onboard. Seeing the way the technology is going, and the problems being caused by RIAA tactics, I certainly would not buy stock in any of these companies at the moment.
Just in case Magnatune.com makes in IPO, buy stock in them. The only commercial and fail company, I know of.
2nd EDIT: C) If they're so damned worked up about this, why don't they just make CDs not copy-able and then sort that out in court with people like Apple, who have contracts with recording companies allowing people to use iTunes? You know, and after that, deal with declaring bankruptcy as their entire industry collapses.
If you can listen to them, you can copy them. It's as simple as that. To listen to music from CD, the CDs need to be read and then, it'd be theoretically possible to send the output to an application or a physical system to store the data.

As for the iPod question, the whole idea is that you cannot transfer music from any CDs you own to an Ipod because you are making an unauthorised copy of that CD. You are supposed to buy the licence for that copy of the song when you buy the tunes from iTunes - which is the only legal way to put songs on an iPod.
Unless the iTunes agreement allows you to make copies of the songs, the same argument holds. Putting a song on an iPod or any MP3 player is making a digital copy of a copyrighted song.

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work"

damn:mad:

Well, if I can't bend the law, I shall break it;)

It is intellectual property because the representation methods are actually logical, not physical. If you copy a painting (as long as you don't try to sell it as if it were the original) do you have to pay royalties?

"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work"

Unless the iTunes agreement allows you to make copies of the songs, the same argument holds. Putting a song on an iPod or any MP3 player is making a digital copy of a copyrighted song.

Read my post again please. THAT'S what you pay for when buying from iTunes. The license for that copy of the song with which they provide you. The song is meant to go straight into the iPod, and that copy is the only legal copy you have and have paid for.

Hmph, thank God for the ultra-slow legal system in my country!!

Read my post again please. THAT'S what you pay for when buying from iTunes. The license for that copy of the song with which they provide you. The song is meant to go straight into the iPod, and that copy is the only legal copy you have and have paid for.

Then the very copy it makes on your harddrive is illegal.

Read my post again please. THAT'S what you pay for when buying from iTunes. The license for that copy of the song with which they provide you. The song is meant to go straight into the iPod, and that copy is the only legal copy you have and have paid for.
This doesn't work without several occurances of buffering which are nothing but copies.

*cough* It is illegal for Amazon to export to your country.:)

Where does Japan get their CDs then?

Maybe you should just listen to music under saner licenses, which explicitly permit sharing, like the CreativeCommons (http://www.creativecommons.org)-licenses.

I've heard of Creative Commons before, but I don't like punk music.

Where does Japan get their CDs then?
Better deals with copyright holders.

I've heard of Creative Commons before, but I don't like punk music.

How about Italian Reggae: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/5835
ballads: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/1443
lounge music: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/347
Indian ragas: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/2488
folk: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/2559
worldmusic: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/8496

I just went into my jamendo account and searched for some interesting styles...

Unenforcable laws, my favourite kind.

the original problem is the P2P which allowed the RIAA to know who has MP3's on their computer. as long as you either A: don't have MP3's on a drive accessable by P2P network or B: don't connect to a P2P network, you are safe because if the RIAA breaks into your computer to look for MP3's, that would be illegal hacking.

Had these people not been on a P2P network, then they wouldn't have gotten any letter by the RIAA.

In a clever and calculated move by the RIAA designed to stop piracy, they have decided to sic their legal pit bulls on people who store copies of their legally bought CDs in digital format on their own computers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Apparently by storing a personal copy of your legally bought, physical CDs on your computer's harddrive, you are making unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material controlled by those fucking fascists dicks.. I mean hard-working egalitarians at the RIAA.


At this point, almost anything you do that isn't buying a CD and playing it on a CD player that doesn't support mp3 CDs is being argued as illegal by the RIAA. This is the best argument for piracy yet. If doing something so innocent and dismissible as this is going to get you sued for infringing copyrights, you might as well just pirate the music you want and actually give them something to sue you for.

The Washington Post article is sloppily written and, according to some internet reports, it is wrong about the central point of the article: the RIAA isn't suing Jeffrey Howell for copying CDs he owns, but rather for plain old illegal filesharing. source (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/)

The reported official RIAA position on "unauthorized copies" is still pretty dickish, but they are not apparently seeking to enforce it yet. I'm doing further research on this.

The reported official RIAA position on "unauthorized copies" is still pretty dickish, but they are not apparently seeking to enforce it yet. I'm doing further research on this.

*Awaits the expert (or as expert one can get here) analysis.* :)

you are safe because if the RIAA breaks into your computer to look for MP3's, that would be illegal hacking.
Hey, the RIAA is allowed to hack computers? Why haven't anyone we sued them for hacking computers or invading privacy?

Hey, the RIAA is allowed to hack computers? Why haven't anyone we sued them for hacking computers or invading privacy?

No, they aren't allowed to do that, and no, they aren't doing it.

No, they aren't allowed to do that, and no, they aren't doing it.

I bet they wish they could, though.

Hey, the RIAA is allowed to hack computers? Why haven't anyone we sued them for hacking computers or invading privacy?

Because, by joining a P2P, you're allowing access to your computer. thus NOT HACKING.

That's why MOST Businesses don't allow P2P on their business computers. It allows access to their network from outside computers.

Because, by joining a P2P, you're allowing access to your computer. thus NOT HACKING.

That's why MOST Businesses don't allow P2P on their business computers. It allows access to their network from outside computers.

Well to be honest most business consider the drain on resources they have to pay for as well as wasted time before the security threat. It is easier for them to visualize then security hazards

Well to be honest most business consider the drain on resources they have to pay for as well as wasted time before the security threat. It is easier for them to visualize then security hazards

...

Depends on the company. most don't mind you putting MP3's on your computer, others don't mind people going on forums, even my boss doesn't mind certain games on the PC.

it's when you allow things that requires cookies and access like IM and P2P that almost all companies balk at.

I bet they wish they could, though.

Oh, definitely. Actually, while hacking is not an officially condoned tactic, because it would be both illegal and an extremely inefficient way to find pirates, it could very well have been used once or twice against key people that work for torrent sites. But even if evidence of such actions were to surface it would still be difficult to pin it to the companies that make up the RIAA since they outsource all pirate hunting to various shady companies specializing in that. Regular people though have nothing to fear as long as they don't use p2p, at least not until the next version of Windows is released, with fully automatic piracy detection and FBI alerting technology. ;)

...

Depends on the company. most don't mind you putting MP3's on your computer, others don't mind people going on forums, even my boss doesn't mind certain games on the PC.

it's when you allow things that requires cookies and access like IM and P2P that almost all companies balk at.

I dont know I do IT for a couple hundred companies now and the first and only thing they really care about is tracking internet usage. Sure many often do not care if it does not interfere but if the company is in the market for caring security is on the low end of the caring poll

The exception really is medical as Hippa keeps cranking down year by year they are finally coming around to a security conscious mindset.

Read my post again please. THAT'S what you pay for when buying from iTunes. The license for that copy of the song with which they provide you. The song is meant to go straight into the iPod, and that copy is the only legal copy you have and have paid for.

Except that if you pop a regular CD into your computer, and you have iTunes running, guess what it does? It rips it and puts it into your iTunes library.

Are they, in fact, then getting people to break the law unwittingly?

Except that if you pop a regular CD into your computer, and you have iTunes running, guess what it does? It rips it and puts it into your iTunes library.

Are they, in fact, then getting people to break the law unwittingly?

Line 633412 of the EULA: It is the User's responsibility to turn off our automatic ripping


:p

Now, now, let's not advocate the assassination of the RIAA leadership.

I dont know I do IT for a couple hundred companies now and the first and only thing they really care about is tracking internet usage. Sure many often do not care if it does not interfere but if the company is in the market for caring security is on the low end of the caring poll

The exception really is medical as Hippa keeps cranking down year by year they are finally coming around to a security conscious mindset.

that's the key. which is why most companys don't want P2P or other networked communities moreso than just games.

And HIPAA is getting to our level of consciousness.

yes, managers track internet usage for productivity. but most of the time action isn't taken unless it's grossly interferring with productivity.

Except that if you pop a regular CD into your computer, and you have iTunes running, guess what it does? It rips it and puts it into your iTunes library.

Are they, in fact, then getting people to break the law unwittingly?

Never mind that.
What about while it's (albeit temporarily) stored on your computer in the RAM? You don't even need iTunes for that. ;)

that's the key. which is why most companys don't want P2P or other networked communities moreso than just games.

And HIPAA is getting to our level of consciousness.

yes, managers track internet usage for productivity. but most of the time action isn't taken unless it's grossly interferring with productivity.

True but so few of them actually care about security at all, if we did not it simply would not get done.

Never mind that.
What about while it's (albeit temporarily) stored on your computer in the RAM? You don't even need iTunes for that. ;)

I'm pretty sure that most licenses and EULAs and such have provisions for copying during normal use of the product. I know I've come across them before.

Except that if you pop a regular CD into your computer, and you have iTunes running, guess what it does? It rips it and puts it into your iTunes library.

Are they, in fact, then getting people to break the law unwittingly?

There's a lot of music out there that is perfectly legal to copy, and some of it is on CDs. There's more to music than what the RIAA puts out.

Because, by joining a P2P, you're allowing access to your computer. thus NOT HACKING.
Wrong. And oh yeah, wrong.
Trojans are how information is collected and unless you were like "hey, I think I will run this trojan to send information willingly back to the RIAA," they are guilty of a crime.
And what's more, I don't remember anything being said about them gaining the information through the use of p2p networks.

There's a lot of music out there that is perfectly legal to copy, and some of it is on CDs. There's more to music than what the RIAA puts out.

But because they have lots of money, they are allowed to file lawsuits on behalf of those other people that they don't actually represent.

Wrong. And oh yeah, wrong.
Trojans are how information is collected and unless you were like "hey, I think I will run this trojan to send information willingly back to the RIAA," they are guilty of a crime.
And what's more, I don't remember anything being said about them gaining the information through the use of p2p networks.

1) how do you think the Trojan is put on others computers? Email?

2) I never said YOU said anything about gaining the information through P2P networks. the people who got the RIAA letters are on P2P and File Sharing networks.

Your not doing it right until RIAA says it's illegal.

Wrong. And oh yeah, wrong.
Trojans are how information is collected and unless you were like "hey, I think I will run this trojan to send information willingly back to the RIAA," they are guilty of a crime.
And what's more, I don't remember anything being said about them gaining the information through the use of p2p networks.

Trojans are one way ... not the only way

The notices we used to get working for the school the RIAA simply started downloading a song/video from someone on a p2p network and looked where it was coming from (usually more then one from a listed user to make it worth while)

The machine really did not have to send any information above the communication that p2p (or any traffic on the internet) needs

I'm pretty sure that most licenses and EULAs and such have provisions for copying during normal use of the product. I know I've come across them before.

Spoilsport. :p

Spoilsport. :p

Sorry. :(

1) how do you think the Trojan is put on others computers? Email?
Irrelevant

2) I never said YOU said anything about gaining the information through P2P networks. the people who got the RIAA letters are on P2P and File Sharing networks.
Which really has nothing to do with how they were collecting data about people, illegally.

Trojans are one way ... not the only way

The notices we used to get working for the school the RIAA simply started downloading a song/video from someone on a p2p network and looked where it was coming from (usually more then one from a listed user to make it worth while)

The machine really did not have to send any information above the communication that p2p (or any traffic on the internet) needs
But the RIAA has been collecting personal information about people.

How would they ever find out if you did? It's not like the police do regular checks on my computer. Unless that's what happened to my Level 43 character in ADOM that came up as dead last year...

Irrelevant


Which really has nothing to do with how they were collecting data about people, illegally.


But the RIAA has been collecting personal information about people.

Often they subpoena the information from the ISP's based on the IP addresses used in the communication.

No, they used some third party firm to illegally collect information which was found out when their gmail account was hacked, which they were idiotically using for company sensitive information.

yet how is that information gotten and from whom?

Can anyone show the RIAA going after someone who was NOT on a Filesharing or P2P network?

Often they subpoena the information from the ISP's based on the IP addresses used in the communication.
No, they used some third party firm to illegally collect information which was found out when their gmail account was hacked, which they were idiotically using for company sensitive information.

*snip*
Why should anyone continue to buy from these RIAA companies?
*snip*

Anyone have a list of which labels are with the RIAA ? I'm assuming it's all the biggest ones ... nothing stops an artist recording and distributing their own work, and if they want to claim copyright they can do that too ... but there must be labels which do that without endorsing the fascists of the RIAA?

==========

I haven't bought a CD in years (or a DVD for that matter.) I pretty much walked away in disgust when CD's were introduced, and I found there was no refund for having already paid for the copyright by buying the work on vinyl. There should have been, but the hype surrounding digital recordings was all the excuse the labels needed to screw us twice. Goodbye, A&M.

How would they ever find out if you did? It's not like the police do regular checks on my computer.


It's not like they'd tell you if they did.

No, they used some third party firm to illegally collect information which was found out when their gmail account was hacked, which they were idiotically using for company sensitive information.

Hmmm have not heard with that one before ... most of the notices we ever received were simply "shut them down" notices through the school organization

Actually dont think any lawsuits came of it at all

Haven't they ever heard of fair-fucking-use, and the cases that were decided in regards to xerox and book publishers back in the day?

I mean, holy-fucking-Jesus-Howard-Son of Mary-Mother-of-God-motherfucking-Christ. The dude who had the music copied onto his computer, the 2,000 songs guy, I've got twice that number of songs, and they're all either from legally acquired CD's or iTunes.

Anyone have a list of which labels are with the RIAA ? I'm assuming it's all the biggest ones ... nothing stops an artist recording and distributing their own work, and if they want to claim copyright they can do that too ... but there must be labels which do that without endorsing the fascists of the RIAA?
For the RIAA labels, see this page: http://www.riaaradar.com/tree.asp

Yes, it's really long. :(

Edit: Oh, and as for alternatives, Magnatune has already been mentioned and I know there are plenty more. I'm sure someone here knows and can fill you in, but if not, I don't think it would take much googling to find them.

No, they used some third party firm to illegally collect information which was found out when their gmail account was hacked, which they were idiotically using for company sensitive information.

They have to provide an account of how the obtained the evidence, in court. If the evidence is obtained illegally then it is automatically discarded.

The only way they can do it is through IP address, locating the ISP and asking personal details from them.

Anyone have a list of which labels are with the RIAA ? I'm assuming it's all the biggest ones ... nothing stops an artist recording and distributing their own work, and if they want to claim copyright they can do that too ... but there must be labels which do that without endorsing the fascists of the RIAA?
<snip>
If artists distributed their own work, there would be no question of copyright. As creators of the works, the artists would own it. The only legal issue is how to split copyright and royalties among members of the band. Record labels claim copyright because in their contracts with the artists, they buy portions of copyright (the right to produce, distribute, sell and get other uses from the recorded copies) from the artists.

Music artists could use the standard forms or Creative Commons forms to establish their own copyrights to whatever extent they like. I really think the only thing stopping a lot of musicians from running the whole of their own deals is inertia and a fear of not "making it big" the way the current system promise it can do for them. But if I were a musician, that would be my goal -- master of my whole enterprise, with no useless middlemen making 100 times more profit off my work than I do.

They have to provide an account of how the obtained the evidence, in court. If the evidence is obtained illegally then it is automatically discarded.

Well, that's true. But the illegally obtained information could show them where to look, to find legally-permissible evidence.

For instance, hack a whole bunch of computers. When you find someone who's making money from trading, then start collecting the publicly available information (P2P addresses, for instance) until you can lay a charge. The computer is impounded, and it has evidence which you knew was there by illegal means ... all admissible unless you're caught for the hacking.

Police do this all the time. (Protecting their real sources, eg witnesses or criminal insiders). No-one seems to mind when it's kiddy porn, and real police doing the investigation.

Well, that's true. But the illegally obtained information could show them where to look, to find legally-permissible evidence.

For instance, hack a whole bunch of computers. When you find someone who's making money from trading, then start collecting the publicly available information (P2P addresses, for instance) until you can lay a charge. The computer is impounded, and it has evidence which you knew was there by illegal means ... all admissible unless you're caught for the hacking.

Police do this all the time. (Protecting their real sources, eg witnesses or criminal insiders). No-one seems to mind when it's kiddy porn, and real police doing the investigation.

They could do this but slamming a bunch of people based on just the publicly available information as well and would not require illegal activity and to be honest probably be a lot easier.

If artists distributed their own work, there would be no question of copyright. As creators of the works, the artists would own it.

Well, if they can prove they do, then they do. That could be problematic if the music was released direct to the net ...

The only legal issue is how to split copyright and royalties among members of the band. Record labels claim copyright because in their contracts with the artists, they buy portions of copyright (the right to produce, distribute, sell and get other uses from the recorded copies) from the artists.

Yes. I've heard the songwriter's copyright is the most valuable for hits. Doing covers doesn't make much money for the performer.

Music artists could use the standard forms or Creative Commons forms to establish their own copyrights to whatever extent they like. I really think the only thing stopping a lot of musicians from running the whole of their own deals is inertia and a fear of not "making it big" the way the current system promise it can do for them. But if I were a musician, that would be my goal -- master of my whole enterprise, with no useless middlemen making 100 times more profit off my work than I do.

In the days when radio was the major medium, and recording studios were rare and expensive, record labels had a valuable role.

They're trying to hang onto that, the way tobacco companies tried to hang onto the good old days when tobacco was considered a perfect guardian of health. Grrr.

I did look at riaaradar.com, it mentioned on the news page the names of some small labels which are not signed up to the RIAA, and said this:

Also, if you are noticing that quite alot of albums are coming up as being released by the RIAA, remember that they release about 90% of all available music.

Seems you can type in the UPC code from a disk before you even buy it, and see if it's RIAA-tainted. Nice site, thanks!

They could do this but slamming a bunch of people based on just the publicly available information as well and would not require illegal activity and to be honest probably be a lot easier.

Sony seemed to think it was a good idea, though. ;)

Yes, it is technically illegal to make any copy what-so ever of anything copyrighted, regardless of it's use afterwards (i.e. it is not an excuse to make a copy for personal use).

As was highlighted before, I imagine the precedent of the rulings during that whole VCR fiasco gives decent legal ground to argue that it isn't illegal to
make a copy so long as it is for strict personal use.

I just think that the following image says it all about the RIAA. They may even have used this matrix to come up with their current barmy decision!


http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2007/03/riaa-lawsuit-matrix-small.jpg

Sony seemed to think it was a good idea, though. ;)

Maybe the others have learned from that example?

Wow, someone should pyrotechnically insult the integrity of their headquarters...

Where does Japan get their CDs then?China.

:D

They're going to be irrelevant eventually, they should be spending their money on doing something about that, instead of lawyers.

How about http://magnatunes.com/
Is anyone else buying music from them?
The problem is that they don't carry any big names... only independent and relatively little known artists. But I like the way they operate and I've found some really interesting (mostly classical) music there.

1) how do you think the Trojan is put on others computers? Email?

Anyone remember Sony rootkits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit)? :p

The problem with RIAA is that laws in USA are made by money: RIAA can lobby where the consumer cannot (why don't they unite?).


The bad thing is that media industries in Europe are keen to follow the path of USA, though making copies for personal use (like for example backups or to another mediaplayer) is still a legally protected right here across EU (AFAIK). However, copying copyprotected content by breaking copyprotection is against the law.

Anyone who knows something about "CD"s, DVDs or data discs will immediately spot the conflict between the statements - In practice the latter is not enforced: So while it's technically illegal to copy, eg, the audio content of a copyprotected "CD" to an mp3 player it's not enfroced because making copies for personal use is allowed.

How about http://magnatunes.com/
Is anyone else buying music from them?
The problem is that they don't carry any big names... only independent and relatively little known artists. But I like the way they operate and I've found some really interesting (mostly classical) music there.

I want to! it's a shame that they only accept paypal and such and no interbank transfer (is that the English term?), because I don't trust payPal one bit.

I don't trust payPal one bit.
Why? I use it extensively and had no bad experiences with it. Did you hear some scary story? :(

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the OP is inaccurate in claiming that the RIAA has sued anyone for merely copying CDs. Jeffrey Howell is not, as the OP article asserted, being sued for copying CDs onto his hard drive, but rather for illegally sharing files using KaZaA.

I was still concerned, however, about the allegation that the RIAA had argued in that case that copying CDs for personal use was illegally making "unathorized copies." Having looked into the matter, this appears to be an exaggeration.

Here is the brief (http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief) (pdf) in which the RIAA allegedly made the argument about "unauthorized copies." As you can see the brief, is 21 pages long and focuses almost exclusively on the argument that Howell violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted files -- i.e., sharing them using KaZaA.

There is a single paragraph on page 15 of the brief that appears to be the cause of the hysteria.

C. Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings on his computer and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant’s computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.) Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the “.mp3” extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.

While it is true that the brief refers to copies that Howell made as "unauthorized copies," it is less than clear that the RIAA meant that any copies of a CD are illegal. To the contrary, the critical fact is that the files were in Howell's shared KaZaA folder --and thus being illegally distributed. While one may read into the RIAA's language the implication that copies to one's hard drive are "unauthorized copies," it is nonetheless clear that the RIAA is making no explicit argument to that effect. (And I re-emphasize that this stray paragraph is the only such statement in a brief otherwise emphasizing that Howell actually distributed copyrighted material to the public.)

I take offense to being blamed for assertions made by the article's author that I only translated imaginatively.

Anyone remember Sony rootkits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit)? :p

The problem with RIAA is that laws in USA are made by money: RIAA can lobby where the consumer cannot (why don't they unite?).
and the Sony Rootkit was more to prevent the music from being ripped by programs with Ripping ability. it didn't take information and send it elsewhere.

the fact that it also cloaked malware and viruses was a poor, and dangerous, side affect.

Hey, the RIAA is allowed to hack computers? Why haven't anyone we sued them for hacking computers or invading privacy?they dont need to.
All they(Hollywood/RIAA) need to do is be very good friends with the man from Redmond... Bill Gates.

methinks its a marriage of convenience.. and Vista is the baby.

I take offense to being blamed for assertions made by the article's author that I only translated imaginatively.

Take offense if you want, but all I have said is that the OP is inaccurate--and backed that up with research. I didn't rake you over the coals.

I would note that I pointed this out several pages ago (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13331920&postcount=43)), but you (1) did not acknowledge or respond and (2) continued with your "the sky is falling" rhetoric.

Once again, The Cat-Tribe saves the day. :D We can all go back to using our iPods and burning our own mixes via iTunes.

Actually, I do think the RIAA would only just love to stop people from making their own personal use copies of CDs. It's a notion that has been bandied about for many years. But they can't. And apparently, they still know they can't.

Once again, The Cat-Tribe saves the day. :D We can all go back to using our iPods and burning our own mixes via iTunes.

Actually, I do think the RIAA would only just love to stop people from making their own personal use copies of CDs. It's a notion that has been bandied about for many years. But they can't. And apparently, they still know they can't.
They know they can't stop piracy, but that doesn't stop them from trying to fuck everyone over claiming to try.

There is a single paragraph on page 15 of the brief that appears to be the cause of the hysteria.

[INDENT]C. Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings on his computer and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

And how about these quotes from the article?
RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."
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.

Regardless of what they're suing for, they are at least SAYING that ripping your own, legally bought CDs is unauthorized, theft and illegal. Couldn't that be what is causing this "hysteria"?

Why? I use it extensively and had no bad experiences with it. Did you hear some scary story? :(

I heard that if PayPal screws up in any way in relation to people outside the US they're likely to completely abandon you.

I heard that if PayPal screws up in any way in relation to people outside the US they're likely to completely abandon you.
You can hear a lot more on this site: http://www.paypalsucks.com/

FWIW, the RIAA is enforcing its rights under the law (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#backup): "There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies." (Yeah, that's an official US Government site.)

Don't like it? Write to your congresscritter (http://www.house.gov/writerep/) or senatord (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm). It's an election year, and many of the races are expected to be tight, so it's a good time. You could also try sending the Copyright Office a comment (http://www.copyright.gov/help/general-form.html).

If you do write to the Copyright Office, you should probably mention this report (http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html), which says (along w/ other things):The other major concern involving section 117 concerned the scope of the archival exemption. Proponents of amending section 117 raised two primary points. First, they argued that the policy behind the archival exemption needs to be updated to encompass all digital works rather than just computer programs. Since computers are vulnerable to crashes, viruses, and other failures, downloaded music, electronic books and other works face the same risks that precipitated the exemption for computer programs. Some argued that all digital media is susceptible to accidental deletion or corruption. Consumers should be permitted to protect their investments in works.

...

Opponents of an amendment to section 117 asserted that even if there is a mismatch between actual backup practices and the current exception, no one has been harmed by it. Commenters noted that no one has been sued as a result of backing up material outside the scope of section 117, and no one has stopped performing backups.

And point out that the counterargument is now bogus, since people are being sued.

This has been a public service message from the Federal Council of Northwest Slobovia. Northwest Slobovia: governing best by governing least since 1903.

Oh well. It's not like they can get me, but I start to really, really hate RIAA now. I'm thinking about selling my Rega Apollo CD player, so I'm not tempted to ever buy a music CD, as that would be a betrayal to my beliefs.


Flush off, RIAA. Were as much as 0.01% of your releases not feces, I could consider otherwise, but as of now, your politics of earning money by suing people when you discover your CD suck so much that no one buys them are so disgusting that there's simply no other way.