|
The RIAA wants to make CD ripping illegal
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 30 December, 2007
In the latest RIAA lawsuit against a P2P file sharer, some new, disturbing facts have come to light. It turns out the RIAA wants to make CD ripping, the act of copying music from a legally purchased CD to your PC, illegal.
Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona man accused of keeping a 2000 song collection on his computer, is accused of keeping "unauthorized copies of copyrighted recordings", music ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
4. January 2008 @ 00:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing
First of all downloading audio from a ptp client is not STEALING.
Imagine this, Daniel raided Mike's house and looted all his furniture,items etc. since Mike no longer has them in possesion he is
a victim of theft. But lets say Dan copied all of his mp3's Mike could still run them, all Dan did was reproduce some 1s and os. Same with so-called stealing satelite signals. You can not steal some for of electromagnetic radiation, signals are everywhere even in your house but did you authorise them to be in your hose. maybe not if your not a subscriber. If somethings in your house it's yours. You wouldn't want a burglar in your house, so what give some multinational corp to transmit it to you. If its in your house you have a right to utilize it. ITS NOT STEALING PERIOD!!!
No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. January 2008 @ 00:23
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
chinpark9
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
4. January 2008 @ 04:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interesting concept, there, Leningrad. But like all original thoughts, that would have to be proven in court, and this is where your so-called bent judiciary would be outed.
I will be with you in spirit.
|
|
Sazaziel
Junior Member
|
5. January 2008 @ 00:58 |
Link to this message
|
Regardless of legal issues Leneingrad has the most valid point of all. The only problem is that it that the the RIAA and the courts will prey on the double standard of it. Legally the issue transcends into privacy in ones home while the other is (for some strange reason) viewed as a theft of services of some sort. In which I really don't see the RIAA or the courts providing any means of services by attacking ones privacy. I believe the key word here is "privacy" but in this day and age we are starting to loose more and more of our privacy everyday. The shit that the RIAA and MPAA are doing is just the tip of the iceberg. It no different then the American law that just came into play that the screening of all phone calls is now considered legal (and I don't remember having a vote for that shit). When someone has an idea to take back the things that are rightfully ours as a whole then I'm all in. Until then its just hot steam and wishful thinking.
|
|
chinpark9
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. January 2008 @ 01:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Leningrad makes sense. I wish I had paid more attention to his writings. I assume he has contributed in the past.
As long as I am only making copies of my DVDs/CDs, for my own use, i.e, to preserve the integrity of the originals in a safe place, all those people can shout as much as they like. I will keep on making copies.
At this time, I have to add that I have not bought many CDs/DVDs, in the last few years, even before those organisations started to get hungry.
I have this exception to people who take their ( earned ) gains to inject them directly into their veins, or eyelids,or toes, or wherever. Call me foolish, but there you have it. I could go on....
|
|
chinpark9
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
5. January 2008 @ 01:48 |
Link to this message
|
I was going to add: When the RIAA pass a decree, the collective answer should be" Yas suh, massa, right away, massa, would you like me to pass you the whip, massa, so you can punish me? a good whipping will not hurt this niggah, sah!!! ad infinitum.
|
|
Amir89
Senior Member
|
5. January 2008 @ 04:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
How exactly is making an extra copy of a CD onto my computer going to hurt the record sales of Britney Spears or 50 Cent (just an example folks lol).
I mean how is this AT ALL damaging to the music industry.
Look at it the this way:
I buy Artist X's new CD.
He receives royalties from my purchase anyway.
I take my CD and copy it onto my computer, so that I can strictly play it on the computer with having the CD in an optical drive.
By making a duplicate copy of a CD, Artist X is not loosing or gaining any money. He simply has one more copy of each song on a digital medium. Because it's on a computer and not on a hard copy like a disc or tape nobody else (necessarily) will have access to it apart from myself.
It's not Camera companies demand royalties for each photo you take using their cameras.
|
|
joe777
Member
|
5. January 2008 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DVDdoug:
I suspect this story is NOT TRUE! The court documents claim that Jeffrey Howell had copied music into a SHARED KAZAA folder!
Three of RIAA's four major members are now selling non-DRM downloads. They would not be doing that if they wanted to stop people from making personal copies. Perhaps one of the RIAA's lawyers misstated the RIAA's position.
The fact is, personal copying is legal in the U.S.A. per the Audio Home Recording Act (as long as you don't crack copy protection). If the RIAA wants to change this, they will have to lobby congress to change the law.
Wait a mo there grasshopper. All future downloads DRM free, sounds good. Does the same go for cd's and dvd's? For as long as I can remember In the US you cannot circumvent copy protection, even for fair-use. This has not changed, and will not change in the near future. So if you want second rate quality, download and back-up. If you want original quality then buy 2 cd's or dvd's and use 1 of them as a back-up. Thats what these people are saying. And anyway there was much talk about watermarking future music/movie downloads to deter filesharing.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2008 @ 16:41 |
Link to this message
|
DVDdoug, I think they are selling non DRMed tunes to make a buck. To them there is no right of wrong just opportunities.
Leningrad, is only correct because the law says you can make a copy of a copyrighted material for your own use unless you have agreed not to. Actually for some of the reasons he mentioned. That is fair use. I don't think the RIAA has enough clout to rewrite an old law. I suspect they are blowing smoke. They have a good thing with the crazy 100 year copyright law.
|
Member
|
6. January 2008 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
All the RIAA wants is cash, the executives are just sitting behind thier
desks and counting all the cash the made from the lawsuits. Thats just
what capatilism is just plain lies. Although communisim was bad in several ways the knew how capatilisim damaged people and bodies of authority.Yet we see poor people everywhere these people truly need money for thier survival.Poverty is the result of capatilisim.
No one can give you wiser advise than yourself.
-Cicero
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. January 2008 @ 06:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DVDdoug:
Quote:
I suspect this story is NOT TRUE! The court documents claim that Jeffrey Howell had copied music into a SHARED KAZAA folder!
Your statement got me thinking...
That would indicate Jeffrey ceased and desisted possibly after a near miss and still they came after him with everything they could muster. It would appear once you use per2per you can be on a hit list forever! They will harress you even if they can't actually prove do did anything wrong. I guess they are playing Alice Coopers "No More Mr. Nice Guy". I guess they figure the fear factor is more important than public relations. Maybe they think when the stop selling CDs they can stay in business taking people to court.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
RNR1995
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. January 2008 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
Saber Rattling
This is a bunch of crap
The Sony decision clearly states you have the right to copy anything for personal use.
The media mafia is out of their mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._...y_Studios,_Inc.
Or Google it
Where you break the law as a consumer is the Draconian DMCA law
Which again I personally think is BS
If I own it I can copy it for personal use
|
