RIAA sues man for ripping his own CD's!

[Guest srobak]

Nope.

As previously posted:

"The
story actually came out Dec 12.... The guy ripped to his computer and
it was a shared file that was down loaded to other people. or had
access to other members....

But that isn't what the attorney was arguing, nor is it what the brief said. The quote came from the attorney regarding the brief he filed. If you want to dispute anything past that - then you need to take it up with their attorney - not those of us posting what he said. Regardless if he was sharing it, and if they are going after him because he was - they are also going after him because he ripped his own copy to his computer.

The other quotes I listed also had nothing to do with the particular individual, but RIAA's stance - which is basically: You aren't supposed to copy it for yourself... but we have let it slide... be nice and we can continue to do so. Give us a reason not to be nice and we will go after you for that too.

[oldbuckster]

PIRACY ; GENTLEMEN : PIRACY .......................... Stop stealing the Music ............. When Metalica sued over "early release" of an album over the internet, I agreed with them, an album they were working on and just completed, somehow made it to the Inter-net before it was to be released, killing the Sales of the album, why would you buy it, when it's there for free? Lars and the Band were right, that was Illegal, theft of material, whatever term you choose to use, and I supported that position, but to make it Illegal to make copies of a CD I have paid for, is kinda'..........ah,.....DUMB !!!!!!!!! You can tag it whatever way you want, but bottom line, it is about making copies for free ............... They need to make more money, they are on the verge of disappearing, ready to close their doors, Poor Old Record Companies !!!!!!!! What's next, copies from China !!!!!!!!!!!!! ....PIRACY !!!!!!!!!

[mas]

Nope.

As previously posted:

"The
story actually came out Dec 12.... The guy ripped to his computer and
it was a shared file that was down loaded to other people. or had
access to other members....

But that isn't what the attorney was arguing, nor is it what the brief said. The quote came from the attorney regarding the brief he filed. If you want to dispute anything past that - then you need to take it up with their attorney - not those of us posting what he said. Regardless if he was sharing it, and if they are going after him because he was - they are also going after him because he ripped his own copy to his computer.

The other quotes I listed also had nothing to do with the particular individual, but RIAA's stance - which is basically: You aren't supposed to copy it for yourself... but we have let it slide... be nice and we can continue to do so. Give us a reason not to be nice and we will go after you for that too.

What?!

You insist that the focus is simply what some attorney said and nothing more, yet when YOU choose you can digress to whatever additional point you choose.

But we must adhere to one topic and we cannot refer to other aspects that we choose!

Yup, do as you say, not as you do!

You have just santimoniously done exactly what you are faulting us for doing!

And now I am justifying and representing the RIAA. simply by citing another post where a larger more complete treatment of the case was addressed instead of the selectively edited and apparently misrepresented, sensationalized out of context report! LOL!

Whatever...Go debate Maron. (Sorry Maron!!!)

I have already stated that I disagree with what is evidently the current definition of Fair Use as I have no problem with the personal archiving of any digital media nor the making of copies for my 'site', be it the car, my CD player, MP3/iPod (if I used one), etc. I don't even have a real problem with the occasional copying of a disk for a friend - despite the fact that this is technically the redistriution of the media without compensation.(But I don't try to fool myself that it is not!) And I guess that that may make me a terrible heinous criminal in the eyes of the RIAA and even simple logic according to the current laws.

I personally tend to prefer a fair use standard somewhere between a mutliplatform "site" license combined with that similar to what is in place regarding the manufacture of wine for personal use. But exactly how you translate this concept into the digital realm might well be problematic.

If 'they' choose to get a warrant, they can charge me with making CD
copies that I won't cry over should the copies degrade due to exposure to heat or
occassional poor handling. I also have no problem with breaking
copyguard for the purpose of personal site use and running computer
games in my computer on a virtual hard drive without having to carry
the actual source CD around. 'Cause I be guilty... I don't even have
a problem with sharing the investment in a software program for the
purpose of allowing several individuals to trial a package that they
might not ordinarily invest in in order for them to see if the package
might suit their needs and that might result in their ordering a
standalone copy...

But, in any regards, I am not a participant in the massive redistribution of material via impersonal P2P networks... Nor do I agree with that practice. And the incessant rants that are so common against DRM because someone simply wants something for free and graciously deems themselves or someone else entitled to the product of someone else's labor is absolute nonsense and proceeds to pass it around on a large scale.

But the fact remains that the case cited is evidently in regards to someone
redistributing more than just a few copies of music without compensation. And that is what was being referenced. And the large
scale redistribution of material over a network is an open invitation
to legal action.

And if you want to debate some other secondary aspect, go ahead. Just don't go making specious claims similar to that of "the Courts" are going after someone! At best it is the actions of perhaps overly zealous lawyers and clients defending what they feel is in their interest. If you don't like it, debate them. But just realize that what individuals do can be different from what the law actually specifies.

So argue whatever you like, just cite accurate accounts and not some out of context, emotional and sensationalized account.There is enough real weirdness in society to marvel at without the need to cite manufactured accounts.

And don't try to make me a spokeperson for anything the RIAA does.

I don't pretend to be a saint. But neither am I stupid enough to download or to redistribute hundreds or thousands of files via a P2P download site and then blame the RIAA/MPAA! And I have little sympathy for those fools who do - regardless of what you or I think of the RIAA/MPAA.

[mas]

GOOD... Next they will go after you for not paying royalties every time you play your records....And if any body else in ear shot who was in the room when you played it.

Not as far fethced as it sounds. Take a painful read through all the EULAs and TOS agreements we are signing like so many blank checks these days. Some of these terms you agree to would make your head spin right off. My favorite being, "we can make changes to this license agreement without notice, and you agree to be bound by those changes in the future." Another common term in these EULAs is giving up your right to free speech regarding the product attached. Or, the right to any remedy if the product causes damage. Many of the terms you agree to cancel out ordinary rights you have under other legal provisions or standards.

How'd we get here? Or more importantly, how will we ever get out?

Boy, I certainly can't disagree regarding the EULAs and how we sacrifice the majority of our rights, including the right to any redress other than arbitration at the hands of inbred industry representatives! And don't even mention the credit card 'industry'...

Regarding royalties for the playing of individual songs, I think that that has already been dealt with. Commercial establishments are liable for exactly that - hence why the (re)broadcast of radio and cableTV stations are regulated in commercial establishments, whereas personal use for personal listening is exempted under the premise that one has purchased the right to use (but not own) the material for personal use. Just don't play it during a birthday party![]

With so much ire being generated on all fronts to the satisfaction of no one, one wonders why some have not made a bigger noise and developed a viable alternative providing for equitable reform of the laws...It seems that someone could certainly ride that horse to popularity provided they could provide a viable alternative. And in that regards, the silence seems deafening.

Is anyone familiar with a responsible alternative proposal? The overly simplistic notion of simply removing all DRM controls is not equitable. Has the EFF presented or proposed a solution that protects the interests of all parties?

I would be curious with respect to viable proposals, as I don't think anyone would disagree that the current situation leaves much to be desired.

[ZAKO]

Before this gets too far.....Ed Eisner (ex Disney CEO) wanted to find a way to charge every one in there home who watched a Disney movie or a Disney CD.. So for RIAAA has not tried to go after every one in ear shot of your home audio system if you had your window open... But then again !!!!!!! Being in a tape club could get you in trouble.....Unless you are distributing your own music on your own instruments..... But then again do you own your own music instruments or do you in the future have to pay royalties every time you use it???? Where do you place the ticket office??? MAS!!!! you could place all your words on the head of a pin and still not have the brains to debate me.

[Guest srobak]

I have already stated that I disagree with what is evidently the current definition of Fair Use as I have no problem with the personal archiving of any digital media nor the making of copies for my 'site', be it the car, my CD player, MP3/iPod (if I used one), etc. I don't even have a real problem with the occasional copying of a disk for a friend - despite the fact that this is technically the redistriution of the media withput compensation. And that makes me a terrible heinous criminal in the eyes of the RIAA and even simple logic according to the current laws.

{...}

If 'they' choose to get a warrant, they can charge me with making CD
copies that I won't cry over should the copies degrade due to exposure to heat or
occassional poor handling. I also have no problem with breaking
copyguard for the purpose of personal site use and running computer
games in my computer on a virtual hard drive without having to carry
the actual source CD around. 'Cause I be guilty...

Ok - so long as we are on the same page on that. We both feel the same in that regard. I know you *say* you won't cry about it... but that is the same thing that a guy who speeds 5 or 10 over the limit says... until they get caught. Then they cry like a 5 year old girl - because truly in your own mind (and mine) you did nothing wrong by making an extra copy for yourself.

But, in any regards, I am not a participant in the massive redistribution of material via impersonal P2P networks... Nor do I agree with that practice.

Again - we agree.

Where we disagree is that you will apparently "take it on the chin" if they come after you for your personal copies... including MP3 players and whatnot (it had to get on there via computer as MP3 osmosis is still being refined). I personally think it is ridiculous for them to start this practice, and it could lead to far more backlash than there already is.

I have been following it since the mid 90s. From about 97 to 04 - despite RIAA claims - cd sales took a major increase, to the tune of nearly triple the previous 7 years. During this time, RIAA was citing universities as being the root of all the evil. Both Billboard Magazine and almost every major college newspaper conducted studies in which they asked anonymous offenders about their CD purchasing habits in light of mp3's. Across the board the response was if they heard something they liked from online - then they would usually go and buy the CD. Kinda like for the rest of us back in the 70's... yeah - cassette tapes were small and portable and easy to replicate other legit source material, but you still wanted to own the album so you could get the pictures, liner notes, and the novelty of owning the actual recorded media. On all of the dorm rooms I had to enter for one legal reason or another - trust me - there was absolutely no shortage of production CDs or DVDs, that's for certain. Most made my collection look like tiddly winks. What RIAA failed to understand from this, is that essentially - it was free marketing which was resulting in higher sales and more new artist exposure.

RIAA is floundering now - that's about all this is adding up to. There are more "top 40" artists now than ever in history across every genre. This is directly due to the exposure factor that online media gives for your otherwise classified "garage/bar bands". Those artists are all making some major, major bank thanks to production media sales, concerts and tours (which are now longer in dates, larger in show, and more expensive in tickets than ever before - well beyond inflation), and associated marketing (have you ever seen Steve Miller Band shoes? Of course not... but you can find clothing items with top40 artist endorsements/names on them from over a hundred artists in any given store on any given day). More artists and labels than ever are releasing their singles and entire albums in mp3 format on a per-track price scale, yet there are more multi-platinum albums in one year now than there were in 5 years just 10 years ago. Do the math here...

At first you had some artists who complained and tried to fight what was only a natural evolution of music in the digital realm - but today, those numbers are in the far minority. If it were me - yeah, I would give up the $12 CD sale for one person to take in $120 for that same person to go to my concert because he liked what he heard on "free mp3s" and who otherwise wouldn't have gone to my show. I'd be stupid not to. Everyone is making out like a bandit on the deal, including the RIAA.

What it does promote however - is keeping artists at the top of their game, because with all this new, global exposure - if you are not at the top of your game - there are a hundred more up and coming artists who are going to get the same chance you did, and they are nipping at your heels. If you do it right - you will reap the benefits and you will be a music giant. Do it wrong however - and there are plenty of folks who will be all to happy to replace you. If you do it right - then you still stick around a long time.

But the fact remains that the case cited is evidently in regards to someone
redistributing more than just a few copies of music without compensation. And that is what was being referenced.

You really need to go back and read and understand the case and what the attorneys are going after. If he re-distributed or not is a completely isolated issue, and is not even in the brief that the attorney filed. They are trying to compound the issue by lobbing the personal copy part on top of it. It is a scare tactic, really... attempting to reduce the potential of mp3 distribution by going after you for making a personal copy. This is akin to courts and police stopping people from speeding by putting throttle blocks on cars so they can't exceed 65mph. They can still speed in a 35mph zone and the accountability falls on the operator. Same is true here - responsibility not to distribute should fall on the person, and not smack them for making their own personal copy on the premise that now they have the potential to commit a crime by distributing it.

And if you want to debate some other secondary aspect, go ahead. Just don't go making specious claims similar to that of "the Courts" are going after someone! At best it is the actions of perhaps overly zealous lawyers and clients defending what they feel is in their interest.

I never said it was. I did in fact direct you to understand that it was zealous lawyers... why you are arguing with me when you agree with me makes no sense.

If you don't like it, debate them.

I'm not debating them... I was debating you because you were trying to say that what wasn't at issue is exactly what was at issue.

And don't try to make me a spokeperson for anything the RIAA does.

Right now you are doing that well enough on your own Ignoring the actual impact and arguement that something really has and try to talk about something else.

I don't pretend to be a saint. But neither am I stupid enough to download or to redistribute hundreds or thousands of files via a P2P download site and then blame the RIAA/MPAA! And I have little sympathy for those fools who do - regardless of what you or I think of the RIAA/MPAA.

I don't have sympathy for them either. Sharing copywritten works is against the law. I do not endorse or condone breaking the law. However - my stance on the whole personal copy issue is completely isolated and different from that. If RIAA goes after someone for making personal copies and uses that as a line-itemed case arguement as they have in this case - regardless what else was done after that fact - then I fully stand by that it will open a whole new can of worms that will only cause more harm than good.

[Guest srobak]

Just don't play it during a birthday party!

You joke - but if indeed the whole personal copy thing goes to length, trust me - that WILL be next.

With so much ire being generated on all fronts to the satisfaction of no one, one wonders why some have not made a bigger noise and developed a viable alternative providing for equitable reform of the laws...

For the exact same reason illegal immigration hasn't been reformed. They are great for doing the jobs that no one else wants to do for less than 1/3rd to 1/4th what anyone else would demand to be paid for it... so by that aspect - it's ok. However - as soon as one of "those people" crosses you - call the INS! In essence - when it works for you - it isn't a problem, but as soon as it doesn't give you any gain or gives you any trouble - off with it's head! It's the American way.

I

[oldbuckster]

Anybody want a copy of .......................................ooops, I can't do that, Sorry !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Duke Spinner]

lat me give You the Artist's viewpoint ....

RIAA done nothin' for me ..

and, thanks to the Internet, and places like CD Baby ..

I ... can self publish, and get HALF

the money, rather than the record industry Bone thrown out ...

http://www.oregonyeti.com/SlimPlayinGuitar.html

[oldenough]

Hey Duke, Some nice playing there, can you give us some more info or more music.

John

[ZAKO]

Do you know how many toes your stepping on by useing the artwork (copyrighted) on your AVATAR ???

[mas]

For the exact same reason illegal immigration hasn't been reformed. They are great for doing the jobs that no one else wants to do for less than 1/3rd to 1/4th what anyone else would demand to be paid for it... so by that aspect - it's ok. However - as soon as one of "those people" crosses you - call the INS! In essence - when it works for you - it isn't a problem, but as soon as it doesn't give you any gain or gives you any trouble - off with it's head! It's the American way.

I

I disagree. The driving factor behind the politics of immigration have little to do with the perception of the average person. would be simple if actual opinions are polled.

The real issue is that whoever succeeds in passing a real immigration bill that does not reward those who have in fact circumvented the legal immigration procedures will be perceived as the boogieman for the next generation by the majority of the Hispanic community, and thus the fastest growing minority will become aligned with with the party perceived as not actually enforcing existing and strengthening immigration laws. Heck, I think we could argue that they don't need a new reform bill at all and I would be ecstatic if they would simply begin enforcing the laws passed in the last reform bill!

This is a case where doing the right thing and rewarding those who follow the rules instead of finding creative ways of circumventing them will result in a net political defeat when viewed interms of who will benefit from the support of a growing political voting block. You do the right thing and your power base is compromised and you do the easy thing and you gain lots of long term support.

Had the issue simply been should we or how should we manage immigration, the issue would have been solved long ago and the laws would be actively enforced.

And regarding the copyright law, this is like watching 2 parties involved in a fight of whom neither are exactly shining stars! And as auch, i do not see the issue as simply the RIAA/MPAA. (It really doesn't matter if you or I like or dislike them. Personally, I am not a fan of theirs. But no matter!!!) Both parties have exceeded reasonable limits. But they are simply advocating the rights of their constituent members (albeit with subsequent generation of LOTS of ill will and little real benefit) according to the interpretation of existing laws. How they are doing it is secondary to the fundamental issue regarding whether they have legal foundation in their basic actions. Gee, put that way, they sound like a big trade union! The Teamsters immediately come to mind...[*-)]

The real solution is not to be found in debating the tactics of the RIAA, regardless of how much you dislike it. That is a red herring. Thus far they are functioning within the law. (See a small problem here?)The solution is in defining the terms of the laws so that usage is equitable for all and enforcement reasonable. And as it currently exists, the wholesale copying and redistribution of copyrighted material without compensation by the 'poor innocent victims' is not equitable either. I find lots to dislike in both groups. (Again, just like big management and big labor!)

Given that the rules as written are known by all, it is one ludicrous for one team to suddenly stop midpoint in a baseball game to argue the ethicacy of he opposing team stealing a base. (Why do I feel the need to explain the intended humor in this example...aside from the fact that some still don't get it...) But that is not the time to do it. If you don't like the rules you change them prior to , or upon completion of the game. The issue is not the small detail of who stole the base or who tossed them out upon the discovery of the act. And that is exactly what many are doing is simply b!tching about the RIAA/MPAA.

The answer is to reform the law that gives each party standing, and not to simply argue that we do not like a party for doing what the law maintains is legitimate and to proceed to make excuses for those breaking the law. The complaints are misplaced as parties acting within the the scope of the law (regardless of what our personal opinion of the law may be.). And its getting old listening to the same gripes directed at those who make no difference in the legal arena. If we don't like it we should be actively lobbying our representatives to change the law. And thus far, I am unaware of any lucid equitable alternative that effectively addresses all of the issues regarding digital content. And it seems to me that as the laws now stand, few hands are 'clean' and our gripe should be with the law, not simply with the RIAA/MPAA

Small points, but distinctions nevertheless.

Bottomline, the copyright and usage laws are broken, just as the patent laws...Its time for some serious effort to be made to bring them into the 18th century. Hey, I am simply trying to be realistic; and I certainly have little hope that they can be brought up to date such that they actually reflect current technology! []

And just as a side point. You and others repeatedly dismiss points as irelevant which ironically were focal points of other past posts referring to what OTHERS have said. [] This recurs over and over in these threads. Instead of taking each reference 'personally' and wondering to what they refer, instead of dismissing the source,, one might what to figure out to what was being referred instead of dismissing it as irrelevant and declaring your victory regarding the reference My original post in this thread was to take issue with the fact that "the courts" are not 'the parties' instigating any action against any alleged perpetrators. A small but fundamental distinction []

And then Travis, you and others have taken my point to be that of debating the original post of the thread! IT WAS NOT. But that hasn't stopped anyone from continuing to try to do exactly that. My intent was never originally to debate all of copyright law, but to address one small aspect of just who was responsible for this issue and to make reference to a very small aspect that was mentioned in a subsequent response to the original post made by mdeneen and in it I referred to another aspect of the enforcement that focused upon aspects based upon the attempts to break copyguard as defined in the DMCA which is also a lever used in this process,and fundamental to the movie side of the issue and extending to software as I unfortunately must deal due to liability and security issues. - and by the way a fundamental part of Disneys's case is that they have Macrovisioned everything they market - including over cable - thus if you circumvent it (as is easily done bY simply scrubbing the vertical interval), you are in violation of the DMCA provision that it is illegal to even attempt to circumvent copyguard of copyrighted material. thus they have utilized a strategy similar to what Videocypher did by adopting DES in the '80s and using the shield of the espionage laws.

I never had any intent to debate "the original case" as you and others seem want for me to do. That was not my meaning nor my intent.

But ultimately my vote goes to those who have failed to develop an equitable law that succesfully addresses all of the aspects of the stakeholders of digital media .I still agree with that perspective.

I find myself in the middle of the debate as i can neither justify the enforcement of the letter of the law as it stands and I also cannot support the widespread sharing of 'files' via P2P networks. And for that matter,anyone who persists in doing that knowing that they are being scrutinized is a fool. If you are going to do small scale sharing and personal site copying, as it is simply too easy to stay under the radar for lack of a more reasonable compromise under the law.

Have a nice New Years...and don't get caught distributing files over some P2P network! []

[Duke Spinner]

Why, thanks , Oldenough []

I take it You .. like the way I slur my Note's ...[]

no Story, here ...

just another guy who's played in Bars 30 some years ...

had a Record Deal .... back in the '70's ...

including the hosing by Atlantic ,.. of $30,000 in Postage, $ 167,000 in Promotional lunches, Etc ...[:@]

by the bye .. I play a '74 Les Paul Special .. ..thru a '71 Marshall SL 100.. NO .. Strat, O.B. ...[:$]

[oldenough]

My compliments to ya Duke, got any more you'd like us to listen to, i for one would appreciate it. To hear something from one of our own adds something to the experience.

[oldbuckster]

Not Everyone can play a Strat ............ FENDER RULES ........ Gibson's played thru Marshall's turned up to 11= 70's METAL !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest srobak]

lat me give You the Artist's viewpoint ....

RIAA done nothin' for me ..

and, thanks to the Internet, and places like CD Baby ..

I ... can self publish, and get HALF

the money, rather than the record industry Bone thrown out ...

http://www.oregonyeti.com/SlimPlayinGuitar.html

*applauds duke*

This is exactly the stuff I was talking about in my long post, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that the majority of artists would say they feel the same way, if their contract allowed it.

BTW - that is some great playing... You mentioned CD Baby... do you have anything up there currently? I would not mind getting hold of more of that and contributing to a real artists' bank account

[mas]

lat me give You the Artist's viewpoint ....

RIAA done nothin' for me ..

and, thanks to the Internet, and places like CD Baby ..

I ... can self publish, and get HALF

the money, rather than the record industry Bone thrown out ...

http://www.oregonyeti.com/SlimPlayinGuitar.html

Why Duke,

How can you fail to mention how valuable the Musicians Union has been to making sure you get scale whenever you play!?

ROFLMAO

If only they worried about folks getting paid like they do making sure you have paid them when you happen to be in one of the few venues where you actually get paid scale!!

Sort of like how valuable the Teamsters, CWA, and the IBEW are to live performances!

[]

Organizations protect their stakeholders. And just exactly who are the real stakeholders?

Next you'll be telling me that my Senator doesn't worry about me personally!

And anyone is really surprised by any of this? LOL

[oldenough]

Come on Duke don't tease us, don't be shy. I'd really like to hear some more of that.

[Guest srobak]

+1

And we are willing to pay

heheh

[Daddy Dee]

spoof CD liner notes from RIAA. pretty good.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/riaa-liner-notes.php