I ran across this article on another forum. I've never seen the source before and so don't know how reliable it is, but what it claims was enough to make me do a double take and worry. If the claims are true I think I'm gonna end up headed in the outraged direction. I sure hope they're not. Here's the article:
According to this article the RAIA and music industry are trying to make the backing up, ripping, and copying of cds illegal. Can anyone confirm the info in the article, or how good a source it is?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's empty. But yeah, that's pretty much the position of the RIAA. They're idiots, but they're powerful ones.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Sounds like a great idea to try to make some more money. After all, imagine having to buy the same song over and over again? For your CD player, your phone, your mp3 player, and whatever other formats come up.
I'm a little surprised that you're surprised, actually. Did you know that if you legally pay to download songs that you often don't actually own the song? You can't listen to them if you ever cancel the service. I suppose you're renting the song. (I say can't listen to them because many of them have keys in them and are in a proprietary format.) Having said that... I don't buy music online personally...this is just what I've heard in various places. If I'm wrong, millions of hatrackers will correct me soon, I'm sure. But I don't think I am.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I'm a little surprised that you're surprised, actually. Did you know that if you legally pay to download songs that you often don't actually own the song? You can't listen to them if you ever cancel the service. I suppose you're renting the song. (I say can't listen to them because many of them have keys in them and are in a proprietary format.) Having said that... I don't buy music online personally...this is just what I've heard in various places. If I'm wrong, millions of hatrackers will correct me soon, I'm sure. But I don't think I am.
With Napster, any song you've paid the $.99 fee for is absolutely yours. You can listen to it without logging in or connecting to the Internet, and if you cancel your subscription, you still have the song. The songs you CAN'T listen to are the ones you've been listening to while paying the $9.95 a month fee but which you haven't actually bought.
Also, making a backup copy of a CD isn't illegal, as far as I know, and last I heard no one was attempting to make it so.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
iTunes doesn't have a subscription fee, and you can't listen to music on it without buying it, except for a 30 second clip to see if you like it. You buy a song for $.99, it's yours, even if you never go to iTunes again or spent another red cent there. You can only burn a particuluar playlist to CD a certain number of times if it has purchased songs on it, (7? 9? I think 7.) but you can make any number of playlists with the song on it and burn each of them up to 7 times. So yeah, you own the song.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
However, if your hard drive dies and takes with it your only copy of the song you purchased via iTunes, you are technically SOL.
Which reminds me, I really need to back up my purchased songs.
Added: Also, I've been reading Ars Technica for longer than Hatrack (and I've been a member at the forum there for almost as long, but not quite as long as I've been here). I've found them to be generally quite reliable.
Added 2:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Also, making a backup copy of a CD isn't illegal, as far as I know, and last I heard no one was attempting to make it so.
According to the RIAA themselves, they are reversing their previous position and attempting to do just that. The quotes attributed to the RIAA in the Ars piece come directly from them.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:However, if your hard drive dies and takes with it your only copy of the song you purchased via iTunes, you are technically SOL.
And if you lose your CD wallet, ditto. I can't quite see the relevance of this.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I need to back up, too. . .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Their argument appears to be that the DMCA makes illegal the copying of CDs, despite the algorithm for doing so being widely and legally published as the Red Book standard.
Personally, I predict they go down in flames unless they manage to get a law passed, which isn't impossible, stupid as that is.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
An article that got linked to in another forum by the executive editor for ZDNet. Only a transcript, the video link can easily be found through the link above. I'm not sure if I'm going to feel good or bad when I stop buying any CD from a major label. Probably good, it should force me into some better music.
Edit: Hmm, must insert all words.
[ February 16, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Architraz Warden ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Remember Divx? Not the compression thing, but the attempt to make DVDs that could only be watched a certain number of times. That's going to be next on the RIAA's agenda. They need to find a way to prevent you from watching a movie you've bought more than once. Or some way to charge you if you have friends over to watch a movie you've bought.
Speakers may be made illegal, because they permit any old someone passing by to hear music that they didn't buy. Headphones will be made obligatory.
We will be assimilated.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Their argument appears to be that the DMCA makes illegal the copying of CDs, despite the algorithm for doing so being widely and legally published as the Red Book standard.
Personally, I predict they go down in flames unless they manage to get a law passed, which isn't impossible, stupid as that is.
Hell, they got the DMCA passed in the first place. They own Congress.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One of the principle justifications for copyright is that the granting of a monopoly on creative expression provides incentive for creation of such works.
A necessary part of this justification is deciding how much return on creative works is "enough." If the RIAA gets to greedy, I can see a backlash that will severely limit what "enough" is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:However, if your hard drive dies and takes with it your only copy of the song you purchased via iTunes, you are technically SOL.
And if you lose your CD wallet, ditto. I can't quite see the relevance of this.
If I lose my CD wallet (again, that is... >_< ), I still have the audio files on my hard drive, because I ripped my CD collection. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Napster allows unlimited burns of purchased songs.
I have yet to try to rip purchased songs from burned CDs onto another computer.
Also, you can load your Napster library onto up to three different computers, and if your hard drive dies, you can call Napster support, and they'll reissue your licenses.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Napster does not, however, support Mac OS X.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, that sounds like a personal problem.
-pH
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: One of the principle justifications for copyright is that the granting of a monopoly on creative expression provides incentive for creation of such works.
A necessary part of this justification is deciding how much return on creative works is "enough." If the RIAA gets to greedy, I can see a backlash that will severely limit what "enough" is.
So you think something like this will affect demand? Will cause people to not want to pay for music and find something else to occupy thier time? The RIAA, in panic, will push the price of listening to music down so low it will be dirt cheap despite their insane little rules?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So you think something like this will affect demand? Will cause people to not want to pay for music and find something else to occupy thier time? The RIAA, in panic, will push the price of listening to music down so low it will be dirt cheap despite their insane little rules?
No, I think - more fantasize, actually - that as we see producers wringing more and more money out of works by figuring out ways to charge us more and more each time we want to listen to a song, there will be a political backlash that says, "OK, if you want to make four times as much per song as you used to, we'll cut the term of your copyrights to 10 years."
Unlikely. But fun to dream about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.
Presumably they're aware that the iTMS marketshare on the Macintosh platform approaches 100%.
Incidentally, you can put music from the iTMS on five computers and an unlimited number of iPods -- but only iPods, of course. Apple as a company is a bit of a control freak.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The "only iPods" thing is a big issue for me. As is the whole only being able to listen to thirty seconds of the song before buying it thing.
Silly Mac users.
-pH
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I downloaded iTunes a while back (actually it was when Pepsi was giving away free songs underneath one out of every three caps. I went wild, digging through trash cans and everything. I'm a freak, I know). When I realized there was a limit to how many times you could burn a song and that the format wasn't compatible with Windows Media Player, which is what I primarily use, I was seriously pissed. So I googled it, and lo and behold there was this wonderful little program available called JHymn that handily converts the iTunes format (m4p or something if I remember correctly) to mp3 format (google it yourself if you're interested. I'm not even sure it's still around). So now I can burn songs however many times I want and listen to them on Windows Media Player.
All that to say, I figure that regardless of what technological restrictions are placed on ... whatever, there will always be people who have the knowledge and ability to subvert those restrictions and will then distribute that to the masses.
Or at least I hope ...
Edit: I can also put the songs on my own MP3 player. Another thing I thank the creators of JHymn for every day
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
This is a really strange move for the RIAA, I have to say. I mean, they're alienating...people like me. People who actually think, "Hey, illegal downloading IS bad, and people SHOULD make money off music." People who were quick to jump on the legal download bandwagon and who will gladly pay $.99 per song or $9.95 per CD.
This is rather idiotic.
-pH
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:However, if your hard drive dies and takes with it your only copy of the song you purchased via iTunes, you are technically SOL.
And if you lose your CD wallet, ditto. I can't quite see the relevance of this.
If I lose my CD wallet (again, that is... >_< ), I still have the audio files on my hard drive, because I ripped my CD collection.
Well, sure, but in that case you can also back up your iTunes library, which is even easier than doing all that ripping. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: This is rather idiotic.
Which is precisely why it's to be expected from the RIAA. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's no limit to how many times you can burn a song, just a particular playlist, and Jobs wouldn't mind getting rid of that either, but the record companies like it.
Plus, you can always burn it to a CD, rip that, then burn it as many times as you want in whatever playlist. The JHymn Dr. Strangelove mentions does something similar, only without the physical intermediary step, and is perfectly legitimate.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Yeah, this is a pretty boneheaded move by the RIAA. But hey, it doesn't affect me much, since I get 95% of my music from small independent labels anyway, most of which actually, y'know, pay their artists. Less corporate in(s)anity, more monetary support for the bands... it's a win-win situation all around. Between the recent growth in popularity of the indies (aided in no small part by their general embracing of online distribution) and the rise of iTunes Music Store and its ilk, I think the RIAA's on its way out. And good riddance.
quote:...Windows Media Player, which is what I primarily use...
Now that's just crazy talk.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, sL, the RIAA wasn't by any means the primary driving force behind the DMCA. That one rides mainly on the back of the MPAA and a variety of technology/web content companies, though the RIAA hardly objected.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, don't get me started about blah blah major labels not paying artists something something. Some indies take a bigger cut than the majors when it comes to royalties and such.
Besides, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will always love EMI/Virgin.
-pH
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The MPAA and RIAA are equally wrong.
Look, if I buy a CD, I own that CD. I can do anything I want with it, short of publishing it myself. I can copy it a million times, if I want. It's mine.
It's no different than a book. If I buy a book, and I want to make a photocopy of the whole thing, I'm entitled to do that. If someone wants me to sign an agreement when I buy something, saying that I agree not to make any copies of it, I can decide whether I want to sign it or not, and they can decide whether they want to sell it to me or not if I decline to sign it. But short of that sort of contractual obligation, once I buy something, it's mine.
The same applies for movies.
I have a bunch of cassette tapes that my little brother made for me years ago. They're compilations of 45s that we had. I have other cassettes that contain copies of LPs that I made.
I get why these industries want to prevent copying. I also get why the horse-and-buggy crowd were so upset about cars. Tough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I think both the RIAA and the MPAA have serious problems, but they're not the same people.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Look, if I buy a CD, I own that CD. I can do anything I want with it, short of publishing it myself. I can copy it a million times, if I want. It's mine.
I agree that's the way it should be, but it was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that when you purchase a CD, you're only actually agreeing to a limited set of rights as to what you can do with that CD.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's no different than a book. If I buy a book, and I want to make a photocopy of the whole thing, I'm entitled to do that. If someone wants me to sign an agreement when I buy something, saying that I agree not to make any copies of it, I can decide whether I want to sign it or not, and they can decide whether they want to sell it to me or not if I decline to sign it. But short of that sort of contractual obligation, once I buy something, it's mine.
I'm no expert in copyright law, but I believe that copyright gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to photocopy books, subject to certain exceptions. Exceptions include copies made for criticism, news reporting, teaching, research, etc... But absent an applicable exception, there is no right to photocopy a book. I believe the same applies to recordings, but the exceptions are somewhat more complicated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree that's the way it should be, but it was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that when you purchase a CD, you're only actually agreeing to a limited set of rights as to what you can do with that CD.
It's not so much agreeing to a limited set of rights (this is what you theoretically do with EULAs for software) as you legally only have a limited set of rights. The way the law works is that it reserves the right to copy, make derivative work, display, perform publicly, and a few others to the copyright owner - technically you can't do any of these things. However, through a mechanism called "fair use," it gives the right to do those things to the people who have legally procured access to the work in limited circumstances.
The details aren't important to my point. The main thing is that there is no sense of "agreement" limiting what you can do with most CDs.
The same doesn't apply to Napster or iTunes - I assume they do have use agreements associated with them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Look, if I buy a CD, I own that CD. I can do anything I want with it, short of publishing it myself. I can copy it a million times, if I want. It's mine.
I agree that's the way it should be, but it was my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that when you purchase a CD, you're only actually agreeing to a limited set of rights as to what you can do with that CD.
Only in the sense that I'm not allowed to break it in half and use the jagged edge to cut people.
When I go to a store, pick up a CD, bring it to the counter, exchange money for it, and bring it home, no one tells me there are limits to my use of that CD. Just like when I buy a box of cereal, and no one gets to tell me that it must be eaten with 2% milk. They can make suggestions, but unless they get my agreement to their terms, there are no terms.
When I buy a piece of software and install it, there's that EULA thing. When I get to it, I can accept the terms or not accept the terms. If I don't accept the terms, I can't install the software. There's nothing comparable with CDs or DVDs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It's no different than a book. If I buy a book, and I want to make a photocopy of the whole thing, I'm entitled to do that. If someone wants me to sign an agreement when I buy something, saying that I agree not to make any copies of it, I can decide whether I want to sign it or not, and they can decide whether they want to sell it to me or not if I decline to sign it. But short of that sort of contractual obligation, once I buy something, it's mine.
I'm no expert in copyright law, but I believe that copyright gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to photocopy books, subject to certain exceptions. Exceptions include copies made for criticism, news reporting, teaching, research, etc... But absent an applicable exception, there is no right to photocopy a book. I believe the same applies to recordings, but the exceptions are somewhat more complicated.
They can pass a law saying that I'm not allowed to put ketchup on hamburgers, but that doesn't give it any moral basis.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)