WolfsBane Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 While I would agree that the study mentioned does not make the practice of what is generally known as piracy legal, I would also argue that it also does not detract from the fact that the RIAA's worse enemies are not your average consumer that copies CDs into their computers and later to either a flash device or cd-r for their own use, but those entities that make mass copies and later distribute them at a profit, (like the ones in south east Asia). Unfortunately, it is the average consumer that the RIAA has targeted with their anti piracy practices. I have no problems having the RIAA going after the market criminals or protecting the artist's intellectual property, but when they load their crap into my computer without my consent at the risk of great harm to my system, or make it all but impossible for me to make a copy of the CD that I've purchased with my money, I draw the line. These are the same hypocrites that scream and yell that they are protecting their business and the artists, while on the other hand they actively engage in the practice of acquiring the rights of artist's songs from other companies, and then denying the artists that created the songs access to them, including refusing to publish the songs, and then denying the artists the right to release these songs through any record company. I've already walked out of stores that carry cd's with a record's company copy protection software. And I will continue to do so. They have the right to market their garbage however they see fit. I, as a consumer, have the right to not buy their products... a right that I excercise every chance I get... and I am certainly not in the minority in this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98_1LE Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 The artist should not have sold the rights if they thought they might want them later. This is business, and contracts, and money. People and businesses buy the rights hoping for return on investment. I wholeheartedly agree that Sony's anti-piracy "root kit" was over the top and not legal, and I feel they should have been more severely punished, but that is not my decision. As for not being in the minority; my mother had a saying for that. Something to do with jumping off a cliff or something..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfsBane Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 The group didn't sell the rights. They were under contract by a label company that got bought by Sony just as the group was finishing the final touches on their recording. Sony not only refused to release the group's cd as per the original agreement, but also barred the group from release the completed cd via any other lable. Now the group is stuck in litigation to regain the rights of their own work. I don't follow other people's trends like a Lemming... I was simply pointing out that I don't seem to be in the minority in regards to not buying CDs that contain anti piracy software. The record companies have the right to use the garbage to attempt to increase their profit margin... and I have the right to refuse to use their garbage altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98_1LE Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 under contract = sold the rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.