OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer
jim
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
"Recording industry ups ante for downloads
Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal for
someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.
As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a
Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs, industry
officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto one's
computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
The Recording Industry Association of America's position that Howell broke
the law when he copied a legally purchased disc to his computer was
immediately attacked by a lawyer familiar with such charges.
"The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual
physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the
industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your
computer is a violation," said Ray Beckerman, a lawyer who has represented
several of the association's targets in the past.
The Post said the industry's announcement comes in the wake of October's
federal jury case in which a Minnesota woman was ordered to pay $220,000 to
record companies for downloading 24 songs.
© United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any
form."
----------------------------------------------------
Just thought you'd like to know....
jim
Stephan Rose
<snip>
> Just thought you'd like to know....
I wonder how much they like me stripping region coding and CSS encryption
from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the
physical DVDs. =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから
Tom Lake
"Stephan Rose" <nospam...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
news:d7KdnR9tCdCMROHa...@giganews.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:38:51 -0500, jim wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> I wonder how much they like me stripping region coding and CSS encryption
> from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the
> physical DVDs. =)
Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
posts all over the place. 8^)
Tom Lake
Gilgamesh
"jim" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
news:tH4fj.60869$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> (from
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>
>
> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>
> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>
> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
<SNIP>
I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that is
not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
caver1
That's why they want DRM and everything that goes
with it. A way to get around the law.
Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head
people of the movie industry(can't remember his
name). He said that fair use is no good because
you cannot know ahead of time if the person making
the copy is a pirate or not. So then there should
be no legal way to make copies.
Sounds like greed to me.
caver1
Stephan Rose
Sounds like someone that won't be receiving any of my business to me.
Matter of fact, it'll only make it more likely that I'd choose to buy an
illegal copy instead. An illegal copy won't have the restrictions of a
legal copy and would therefore likely be my preferred choice.
Take music for instance. I have all my songs in a huge library on my hard
drive. So if I want to listen to one particular song, I just have to type
in it's name. If I just want to listen to any one random song of one
artist but any album, I can do so too. If I want to listen to any random
song of my collection, which is usually how I have my media player set
up, I can do that as well.
Now let's compare this with what the RIAA and other DRM advocates would
like. They don't want me to copy the music from my CD. I can no longer do
*ANY* of the above. I'm only able to listen to songs that are on the CD
and nothing else.
Listen to a random song I own? Not possible.
Listen to a random song from any one artist (or selection of)? Not
possible.
Quickly find one particular song I'd like to listen to? While it may be
physically possible to locate the CD quickly, it's still a hassle to have
to switch physical media.
Bottom line, I *DON'T* want that. It makes life for me as a consumer more
difficult and reduces my ability to enjoy my content.
Now if I buy illegal copies...
Listen to a random song I own? Possible.
Listen to a random song from any one artist? Possible.
Quickly find one song? Possible.
Do anything else I like? Possible.
So why would anyone, in a DRM world, choose DRM content when non-DRM
content has clear advantages when it comes to actually using the content?
The same goes for movies. I actually have external hard drives that
contain copies of my movies. As I use my computer with a TV attached to
view my movies, this makes it very easy for me to watch any movie I want
which I *legally* own.
caver1
mikeyhsd
"jim" <j...@home.net> wrote in message news:tH4fj.60869$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Mark Kent
If its based on England and Wales law, then you will have something
called the "fair deal".
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
HeyBub
>
> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let
> you make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that
> is not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>
>> Just thought you'd like to know....
Contracts trump "fair use." If you agree (EULA) to not copy the CD, then
"fair use" flys out the window. But wait, it's worse.
If a company includes some sort of control over the product, and you
circumvent that control, you're guilty of violating the DMCA (Digital
Millenium Copyright Act). Lexmark put a chip in its toner cartridges which
prevented their being refilled (the printer interrogated the chip). A toner
re-fill company (Static Control) reverse-engineered the chip and Lexmark
sued under the DMCA. Lexmark ultimately lost the case and all the appeals,
but it didn't stop them from trying.
My view is that if you want to listen to music on your computer, iPod,
cell-phone, or audio system without bothering the rights of anyone else,
then WRITE AND RECORD YOUR OWN TUNES!
Or, do what I do. When contacted by one of those prissy outfits that wanted
me to pay $35/year for our "music on hold" stuff, I put her on hold for
about a minute, then asked: "Do you recognize that music?"
"No," she replied.
"It's Mozart. Being played by the Soviet National Symphony, a country that
no longer exists. Now answer me this: Just who the fuck would you be paying
royalties TO?"
"Never mind," she said.
Beamguy
elsewhere, but here it is from straight from their webpages...
11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music
they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music
of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop
artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well.
We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.
Stephan Rose
> Gilgamesh wrote:
>>
>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let
>> you make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately
>> that is not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>>
>>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> Contracts trump "fair use." If you agree (EULA) to not copy the CD, then
> "fair use" flys out the window. But wait, it's worse.
>
> If a company includes some sort of control over the product, and you
> circumvent that control, you're guilty of violating the DMCA (Digital
> Millenium Copyright Act). Lexmark put a chip in its toner cartridges
> which prevented their being refilled (the printer interrogated the
> chip). A toner re-fill company (Static Control) reverse-engineered the
> chip and Lexmark sued under the DMCA. Lexmark ultimately lost the case
> and all the appeals, but it didn't stop them from trying.
>
> My view is that if you want to listen to music on your computer, iPod,
> cell-phone, or audio system without bothering the rights of anyone else,
> then WRITE AND RECORD YOUR OWN TUNES!
Well I'm not a musician and I don't think my voice matches that of
Hamasaki Ayumi =P
That said...the RIAA can just suck my balls. Luckily, I don't listen to
any of the crap the RIAA puts out in the first place.
>
> Or, do what I do. When contacted by one of those prissy outfits that
> wanted me to pay $35/year for our "music on hold" stuff, I put her on
> hold for about a minute, then asked: "Do you recognize that music?"
>
> "No," she replied.
>
> "It's Mozart. Being played by the Soviet National Symphony, a country
> that no longer exists. Now answer me this: Just who the fuck would you
> be paying royalties TO?"
>
> "Never mind," she said.
Precious, absolutely precious. I love it!
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
> "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> news:tH4fj.60869$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> > (from
>
> > "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>
> > Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>
> > SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that is
> not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
Yes, but I thought I had read somewhere that region coding is illegal
in Australia (that is, the dvd readers sold there play anything,
regardless of region).
caver1
MS sympathizers try to place all the blame on the
movie and recording industry. But what they don't
want to realize is that the movie and recording
industry is taking their business plan directly
from MS. You own nothing. Everything by license or
subscription. Always paying.
This is why most intelligent people are fighting them.
I agree with copywrite protection but there must
be limits.
caver1
caver1
> as had been reported elsewhere. the individual had the ripped music in a
> download folder for a P2P program.
> that's how they were found.
>
> no where near the same thing as simply copying the music to your computer.
>
>
>
>
>
Agreed. But at the same time the RIAA (makes me
think of rabies) also states that any copies are
illegal no matter what the purpose. They won't
fight that view in court because they know they
will lose.
At the same time someone owns a gun. Most crimes
committed with a gun use illegal guns. So all guns
should be illegal and everyone that owns one has
committed a crime. No proof of crime needs to be
brought forth.
No I don't own a gun.
That is what the basis of our laws are based on.
You must prove that the person committed the crime
not that he/she is capable. If the latter was true
there would be no one outside of prisons.
If the Gov't by law cannot use the law to that
effect why should a business?
caver1
caver1
This goes totally against what the RIAA states in
public.
The Fairuse laws have safe guards built in for the
protection of royalties.
At the same time the RIAA wants royalties paid for
ring tones. OK. But at the same time they stated
that they have no intention of passing those
royalties on to the artist.
The sharing of music is a cultural necessity.
If the RIAA has their way no music will ever pass
into the general domain.
Imagine kids on hay rides having to go to court
because they didn't pay royalties for their public
performance. After all anyone anywhere near could
enjoy their performance.
At the same time I know many musicians that have
paying gigs and never write their own music or pay
royalties. Where is the crack down? And I know
they play louder than any radio I might be
listening to.
caver1
caver1
There is also a law that the RIAA is trying to get
passed in every state that if passed then they
will never lose ownership of what you buy. If you
get divorced or die the RIAA has say over what is
done with your music not you. This same law makes
it mandatory for anyone buying or selling used
music to give their thumb prints at time of sale.
No this is not aimed at pirates it is aimed at
your local mom and pop music store to try to stop
that sale. There is more to this law.
This has passed in Florida and 2 other states in
this country.
Whether it is being enforce at this time I don't know.
The RIAA does not want any music to ever pass
into the public domain.
caver1
Stephan Rose
That bullshit passed in Florida? Well seeing how I'm moving to Florida in
just over a week I'm going to have to test that. No frigging clue what
I'd buy to test it with as I exclusively listen to Japanese music but I
suppose I'll find something...
Though tell ya one thing...
If someone seriously wants my fingerprints to sell me a frigging CD,
they'll have to cut off the finger from my dead body to do so.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
君の事思い出す日なんてないのは
君の事忘れたときがないから
Ray Shafranski
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>
>
> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>
> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>
> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
> intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal
> for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.
>
> As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a
> Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,
> industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto
> one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
>
dennis@home
"Stephan Rose" <nospam...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
news:qKOdnUkqY9CUcOHa...@giganews.com...
Unfortunately your definition of legal and the legal definition of legal may
be different.
If the RIAA gets its way they will be different.
However they will have an awful lot of people to take to court and if every
one of those bought a few shares in the media companies they would soon
change their minds once they were unemployed.
DanS
news:ZD6fj.11867$tK5.8119@trndny03:
> This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet
> had time to update their website. They go into more detail elsewhere,
> but here it is from straight from their webpages...
>
> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
>
> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
>
> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD
> for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they
> bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and
> downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of
> compensation for their work.
WRONG !!!! Very few recording artists get a large cut of CD sales. 95% of
profits from CD sales go to the record comapnies.
> When record companies are deprived of
> critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists
> from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the
> music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all
> benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next
> generation of talent.
Now what's REALLY bad for the record companies is the fact that they have
not changed their business model in 70 years. Times change and technology
changes, everything changes and companies have to change as well to keep
up with it.
Here's what I think the music companies should do.....sell direct. Come
on, it cost < $1 to make each CD, so why do we pay so much ?
Distribution. Everyone along the way makes a buck. It DOESN"T go to the
artists.
Why they don't sell direct I don't know. It makes a lot of sense. The
record companies themselves would make more money as thay could actually
charge more per CD selling direct retail instead of to high quantity
distributors, who then sell to smaller qty distributors, until it reaches
the stores.
Here's what I can see.....
A (or several) giant warehouses. All fully automated. A person would
place an order on their website for whatever CD's they want, the order
would be forwarded to the packaging area, the CD(s) would be
automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
shipping method) and then loaded on a truck to go to whatever shipping
depot was chosen.
Almost no human intervention needed once everything is set up and running
properly.
The company could get $5 for each CD, probably 2 to 3 times the amount as
compared to selling in large quantity to other distributors.
Other companies do this, why can't they ? Because they refuse to.
chrisv
>Here's what I can see.....
>
>A (or several) giant warehouses. All fully automated. A person would
>place an order on their website for whatever CD's they want, the order
>would be forwarded to the packaging area, the CD(s) would be
>automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
>shipping method) and then loaded on a truck to go to whatever shipping
>depot was chosen.
>
>Almost no human intervention needed once everything is set up and running
>properly.
>
>The company could get $5 for each CD, probably 2 to 3 times the amount as
>compared to selling in large quantity to other distributors.
>
>Other companies do this, why can't they ? Because they refuse to.
Most companies must always strive for efficiency, lest a
more-efficient competitor overtake them.
The record companies don't have to, because their cartel has an
effective monopoly, so no one can compete with them.
Sid Elbow
> That is what the basis of our laws are based on. You must prove that the
> person committed the crime
Do you have traffic light cameras in the US? If so, who do they go after
when someone runs a red light? Do they have to prove who was driving
the car or do they just assume its the owner (like most other
jurisdictions) because it's more expedient.
Sid Elbow
> ............................................ the CD(s) would be
> automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
> shipping method)
... and there's the rub. By the time they've charged you the packing and
handling charges typical of today's online/mail-order businesses and
shipped it via one of their limited choices of expensive shipping
methods, it's going to cost you more than it currently does in the local
store. You're still paying third parties.
The Ghost In The Machine
<m...@privacy.net>
wrote
on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000
<5u4im5F...@mid.individual.net>:
No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.
Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.
However, the copying of the disc could be construed as
a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical
copies being generally impossible. It really depends on
how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably
screwed up anyway.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Martha Adams
"caver1" <ca...@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:%234NrL%23gTI...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance
called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.
To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is
this it?
Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]
chrisv
If shipping is so expensive, how come NetFlix and I can send 10 DVD's
(back AND forth) per month for about $20, and they still buy the DVD's
and make a profit?
Sure, their packaging is minimal, but still...
caver1
That's true. Its a real nuisance to the RIAA.
But even probable cause only gives the right to
obtain a warrant or uder the right circumstances
to do a search. It does not give the right to find
someone guilty in its own right.
caver1
caver1
They are not suing him for the copies. Probably
because they couldn't win that one.
He is being sued for sharing which under those
circumstances could be wrong.
I said could be because he hasn't been found
guilty yet.
But just because you could have or might have is
not did.
They should still have to prove that he did.
The butler did it. But you still have to prove
that he did to convict him. Proving that he could
have is not good enough.
caver1
Mark R. Cusumano
"caver1" <ca...@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:#4NrL#gTIH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I wonder if he is a member of the NRA. I wonder how that rationale would go
with guns. "You cannot know ahead of time id the person buying a gun is a
murderer or no. So then there should be no legal way to buy guns". Hmm,
I can't see that flying well :-) Actually if you want to stop music piracy
just make the sale of music itself a felony!
--
Mark R. Cusumano
Skype Name: mark.cusumano
Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com
Sid Elbow
Rhetorical question, I guess but ....
I didn't say that shipping was expensive per-se, just that (most) online
mail-order outfits make it that way. Personally, I've never had a
problem with regular mail (despite the apocryphal tales) and I'm almost
never in a tearing hurry for anything. Nevertheless, I'm rarely given a
choice of that route. Most of the vendors seem to have their cosy little
arrangements with this or that courier which ought to lead to cost
saving for the customer but somehow doesn't.
I couldn't guess how many times I've been all set to order something
online and then realised that the shipping/handling was going to be a
disproportionate part of the bottom line and backed out.
(Perhaps the most glaring example was Roxio some years ago who came out
with a software update (bug fix) available only on CD which they sold
for a nominal $1 to cover the cost of the CD. However, they wanted
around $25 to ship it to me (in Canada) by courier service and
absolutely refused to send it USPS).
Shipping/handling can sometimes be mitigated by ordering significant
quantities so that the cost/item isn't too bad but one doesn't always
want to do that. I wonder how much Netflix would charge to send 1 DVD. I
suspect it would be the same $20.
Darth Chaos
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam.no...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7KdnR9tCdCMROHa...@giganews.com...
>
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:38:51 -0500, jim wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> > from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the
> > physical DVDs. =)
>
> Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
> posts all over the place. 8^)
>
> Tom Lake
I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
fascist gonna tell me otherwise.
Red Henk
"Tom Lake" <toml_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
> news:d7KdnR9tCdCMROHa...@giganews.com...
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:38:51 -0500, jim wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Just thought you'd like to know....
> >
> > I wonder how much they like me stripping region coding and CSS encryption
> > from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the
> > physical DVDs. =)
>
> Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
> posts all over the place. 8^)
>
> Tom Lake
Since you mentioned the MI5 guy, what's with all that spam about?!
Initially I thought that it was just me or the usenet client that I'm
using but the shit is appearing in all the newsgroups that I subscribe
to. I tried to filter it out but it gets around my filters, by small
changes in the subject name.
Red Henk
"Beamguy" <nob...@noplace.com> wrote:
This sentence make me laugh--
"But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading
> music illegally rob the people who created that music
> of compensation for their work."
The record labels are not creators. The true creators are the artists,
and they normally get very little from the price, that the person who
buys the DC, pays. Does anyone know what the percentage breakdown of how
the revenue made from sale of a record, is distributed. I'll bet that
the artist gets no more than 5% tops and that get eaten up expenses that
charged to the artist. It's only the superstar artists who actually make
any money on sales of records.
Mutley
They still use the Post Office not Fedex or the like..
DevilsPGD
<mutley90...@hotmail.REMOVEcom> wrote:
>They still use the Post Office not Fedex or the like..
So? That option isn't exclusive to Netflix, anyone can use this
distribution method...
Gilgamesh
news:3abaa83f-c97c-45af...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
play them in our local units.
But region coding is not the same as making a backup copy.
>
chrisv
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> If shipping is so expensive, how come NetFlix and I can send 10 DVD's
>> (back AND forth) per month for about $20, and they still buy the DVD's
>> and make a profit?
>>
>> Sure, their packaging is minimal, but still...
>
>Rhetorical question, I guess but ....
>
>I didn't say that shipping was expensive per-se, just that (most) online
>mail-order outfits make it that way. Personally, I've never had a
>problem with regular mail (despite the apocryphal tales) and I'm almost
>never in a tearing hurry for anything. Nevertheless, I'm rarely given a
>choice of that route. Most of the vendors seem to have their cosy little
>arrangements with this or that courier which ought to lead to cost
>saving for the customer but somehow doesn't.
>
>I couldn't guess how many times I've been all set to order something
>online and then realised that the shipping/handling was going to be a
>disproportionate part of the bottom line and backed out.
>
>(Perhaps the most glaring example was Roxio some years ago who came out
>with a software update (bug fix) available only on CD which they sold
>for a nominal $1 to cover the cost of the CD. However, they wanted
>around $25 to ship it to me (in Canada) by courier service and
>absolutely refused to send it USPS).
No doubt, all of the above happens. Some sellers, I believe,
artificially lower the product's price and make all their profits with
the "shipping" charges.
>Shipping/handling can sometimes be mitigated by ordering significant
>quantities so that the cost/item isn't too bad but one doesn't always
>want to do that. I wonder how much Netflix would charge to send 1 DVD. I
>suspect it would be the same $20.
You misunderstand. It's not a bulk shipment. Each disk in
individually packaged and shipped.
HeyBub
>
> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.
You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.
You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song or
program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may legally access
this content only under the terms of a contract willingly entered between
you and the creator (or his agent).
caver1
There is no contract when you buy music or a
movie. There is only law covering what you can and
cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
the fair use rights the law has given.
There are contracts with software but even those
cannot take away certain rights that the law has
granted.
caver1
jim
January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
Posted by Greg Sandoval
An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
computer.
Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post
columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What
was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and
has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled
consumers.
Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his
story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court
document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal
file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying
group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their
computers.
Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
repeated Fisher's claims.
But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited
by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief
that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and
violate the law.
"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part
of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during
the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about
putting them into a shared folder."
The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's
story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over
again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music
files via peer-to-peer networks.
Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to
testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself,
I suppose we can say he stole a song."
This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.
"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a
question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position
of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.
Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he
spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.
Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and
left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the
call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get
the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days
later.
It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be
quoted--especially when they're slamming them.
Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the
group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.
But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
problems.
"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if
you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher
said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a
legal right."
"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
claim has ever been made."
In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more
than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably
should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when
someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case
scenarios.
Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?
If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to
explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He
would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.
If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
this case.
Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hf...@telus.net>
wrote
on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:49:53 GMT
<hflam-755F4F....@news.telus.net>:
Presumably, he wants to ensure that his message is
explicitly skipped. :-)
I've seen the same, though, and he's sophisticated; the
usual killmethods may not work on him.
Linonut
> (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )
>
> January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
> RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
> Posted by Greg Sandoval
>
> An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
> sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
> that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
> computer.
Best not to leap to conclusions, then. Sigh.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Rick
>
> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
> as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
> repeated Fisher's claims.
>
enforced?
Rick
Daave
> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
You can't equate songs with programs as the laws pertaining to them are
different.
Just because you don't own the rights to the song (which means
collecting royalties) doesn't mean you don't own that particular copy of
the song. And you are free to do whatever you want with that song as
long as if falls under Fair Use. And that certainly includes ripping an
MP3 off a CD to put on your iPod.
Hans Olo
> Sid Elbow wrote:
>
>> DanS wrote:
>>
>>> ............................................ the CD(s) would be
>>> automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
>>> shipping method)
>> ... and there's the rub. By the time they've charged you the packing and
>> handling charges typical of today's online/mail-order businesses and
>> shipped it via one of their limited choices of expensive shipping
>> methods, it's going to cost you more than it currently does in the local
>> store. You're still paying third parties.
>
> If shipping is so expensive,
shipping is expensive! netflix uses the US post. If a DVD is lost in
the mail, who cares. If you buy a CD, and it is lost in the mail, you
will care.
HeyBub
>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>
>>
>
>
> There is no contract when you buy music or a
> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
> the fair use rights the law has given.
> There are contracts with software but even those
> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
> granted.
You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:
Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.
When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.
The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
"fair use" does. It doesn't.
"Fair use" copying is available for:
1. Criticism,
2. Comment,
3. News reporting,
4. Teaching, or
5. Scholarship.
That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.
There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
Daave
> There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions,
> or other things we talk about here.
Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.
Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm
DevilsPGD
<chewbak...@b-o-b.homelinux.com> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>> Sid Elbow wrote:
>>
>>> DanS wrote:
>>>
>>>> ............................................ the CD(s) would be
>>>> automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever
>>>> shipping method)
>>> ... and there's the rub. By the time they've charged you the packing and
>>> handling charges typical of today's online/mail-order businesses and
>>> shipped it via one of their limited choices of expensive shipping
>>> methods, it's going to cost you more than it currently does in the local
>>> store. You're still paying third parties.
>>
>> If shipping is so expensive,
>
>shipping is expensive! netflix uses the US post. If a DVD is lost in
>the mail, who cares. If you buy a CD, and it is lost in the mail, you
>will care.
You will?
It's no more expensive to replace a lost CD then a lost Netflix DVD,
potentially cheaper since unless Netflix has a special deal with the
studios, they may have to pay wholesale rates to replace a lost DVD.
Thufir
> here is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
> other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under
> different laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main
purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report
explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers
to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their
private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added).
The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008,
which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and
analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely
makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files
that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-
shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use
under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying
is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the
purposes of the Act.[20]
rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exceptions
Seems that so long as it's non-commercial that you can do what you like.
-Thufir
caver1
Fair use also covers time shifting and space
shifting. There are no contracts when buying
music, movies. All fair use decisions on are a
case by case basis. What on case is decided by
the court dose not mean that the next case is the
same so that decision may or may not apply.
The Beta max case fell under fair use not under
the home recording act.
fair use falls under limitations and exceptions
to copyright term in copyrite law. Which is
decided by the courts on a case by case basis.
Your list of five are guide lines that mention
some of the ways copyrited material can be used.
They are not listed in the law. There are others.
still a case by case basis.
The 4 factors in the law are;
the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantially of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work.
caver1
caver1
All of these fall under copyright laws as they
amend legal and non legal uses of copywrite.
Fair use falls under them all. Still decided on a
case by case basis.
RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.
caver1
On the Road to Damascus
He has schizophrenia that is not under control. For the moment he has
been stopped...apparently his ISP finally pulled the plug and he moved
to Altopia...and amazingly, they've pulled the plug on him too.
Despite his obvious insanity, he's clearly one hell of a smart
guy...check out his website, very well done.
caver1
> caver1 wrote:
>>> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
>>> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
>>> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
>>> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
>>> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no contract when you buy music or a
>> movie. There is only law covering what you can and
>> cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
>> the fair use rights the law has given.
>> There are contracts with software but even those
>> cannot take away certain rights that the law has
>> granted.
>
> You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
> started:
>
> Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
> contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
> all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
> duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
> majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
> acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
> constraints.
The courts first have to decide if there is a
legal binding contract. Then they have to decide
if it was broken and if so by which party. Then if
the parties haven't settled out of court decide
what the remedy is.
There is no contract that the RIAA can take you to
court for breaking because there is non.
Back to the car analogies. You buy a car you
break the law by speeding. yes you can be taken to
court and fined but there was contract with the
state or anyone when you bought the car.
Under law you still must use it properly as set
out in law.
There are laws that have granted certain rights to
the user under fair use. There are others that
also set limits such as copyright infringement.
But these laws do not make for a contract between
you and the RIAA or Sony,UMI, etc.
caver1
Plato
>
> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that is
> not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
Which doesn't mean one cant put copy protection on any CD.
Red Henk
On the Road to Damascus <my.life.s...@REMOVETHISgmail.com>
wrote:
What a waste of talent.
caver1
remain see their own fate in that of their fellows and wait their turn,
looking at each other sorrowfully and without hope. It is an image of the
condition of men.
200. A man in a dungeon, ignorant whether his sentence be pronounced and
having only one hour to learn it, but this hour enough, if he knew that it
is pronounced, to obtain its repeal, would act unnaturally in spending that
hour, not in ascertaining his sentence, but in playing piquet. So it is
against nature that man, etc. It is making heavy the hand of God.
Thus not only the zeal of those who seek Him proves God, but also the
blindness of those who seek Him not.
201. All the objections of this one and that one only go against themselves,
and not against religion. All that infidels say ...
202. From those who are in despair at being without faith, we see that God
does not enlighten them; but as to the rest, we see there is a God who makes
them blind.
203. Fascinatio nugacitatis.[26] --That passion may not harm us, let us act
as if we had only eight hours to live.
204. If we ought to devote eight hours of life, we ought to devote a hundred
years.
205. When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the
eternity before and after, the little space which I fill and
caver1
7St. Augustine, City of God, xxi. 10. "The manner in which the spirit is
united to the body can not be understood by man; and yet it is man."
[8]Virgil, Georgics, ii. "Happy is he who is able to know the causes of
things."
[9]Horace, Epistles, I. vi. 1. " To be astonished at nothing is nearly the
only thing which can give and conserve happiness."
[10]Cicero, Disputationes Tusculanae, i, ii Harum sententiarum quae vera
sit, Deus aliquis viderit. "Which of these opinions in the truth, a god will
see."
[11]Montaigne, Essays, ii.
[12]Montaigne, Essays, ii.
[13]Treatise on the Vacuum.
[14]Terence, Heauton Timorumenos, III. v. 8. "There is one who will say
great foolishness with great effort."
[15]Montaigne, Essays, ii.
[16]Pliny, ii. "As though there were anyone more unhappy than a man
dominated by his imagination."
17Cicero, De Divinatione ii. 22. "A common happening does not astonish, even
though the cause is unknown; an event such as one has never seen before
passes for a prodigy."
[18]Allusion to Gen. 7. 14. Ipsi et omne animal secundus genus suum. "And
every beast after his kind."
19Homer, Odyssey, xviii.
20Livy, xxxiv. 17. "A brutal people, for whom, when they have not armour,
there is not life."
21Ecclus. 24:11. "With all these I have sought rest."
22"Terror which is more powerful than religion."
[23]"From fear that they are being led by terror, without guidance,
domination appears tyrannical."
[24]"What will become of men who mistake small things and do not believe in
greater?"
25Is. 45:15. "Thou art a God that hidest thyself."
[26]Wisd. of Sol. 4:12. "Bewitching of naughtiness."
[27]Wisd. of Sol. 5:15. "The remembrance of a guest that tarrieth but a
day."
281 Cor. 1:21.
29"They have seen the thing; they have not seen the cause." St. Augustine,
Contra Pelagium, iv.
30Matt. 11:27 "Neither knoweth any m
The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:54:13 GMT
<jokg89-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
> and that is
> bold and difficult. There is never this contradiction in the feelings
> towards a cripple.
You're a cripple all right, Mister Impersonator.
Is this stuff copyrighted at all, or should it just be
shot on sight? :-P
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
Daave
well as their duty, consisting in their consent to the guidance of the whole
soul to which they belong, which loves them better than they love
themselves.
483. To be a member is to have neither life, being, nor movement, except
through the spirit of the body, and for the body.
The separate member, seeing no longer the body to which it belongs, has only
a perishing and dying existence. Yet it believes it is a whole, and, seeing
not the body on which it depends, it believes it depends only on self and
desires to make itself both centre and body. But not having in itself a
principle of life, it only goes astray and is astonished in the uncertainty
of its being; perceiving in fact that it is not a body, and still not seeing
that it is a member of a body. In short, when it comes to know itself, it
has returned, as it were, to its own home, and loves itself only for the
body. It deplores its past wanderings.
It cannot by its nature love any other thing, except for itself and to
subject it to self, because each thing loves itself more than all. But, in
loving the body, it loves itself, because it only exists in it, by it, and
for it. Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est.76
The body loves the hand; and the hand, if it had a will, should love itself
in the same way as it is loved by the soul. All love which goes beyond
Gilgamesh
more prophets.
703. While the prophets were for maintaining the law, the people were
indifferent. But, since there have been no more prophets, zeal has succeeded
them.
704. The devil troubled the zeal of the Jews before Jesus Christ, because he
would have been their salvation, but not since.
The Jewish people scorned by the Gentiles; the Christian people persecuted.
705. Proof.--Prophecies with their fulfilment; what has preceded and what
has followed Jesus Christ.
706. The prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ. It is for them
also that God has made most provision; for the event which has fulfilled
them is a miracle existing since the birth of the Church to the end. So God
has raised up prophets during sixteen hundred years, and, during four
hundred years afterwards, He has scattered all these prophecies among all
the Jews, who carried them into all parts of the world. Such was the
preparation for the birth of Jesus Christ, and, as His Gospel was to be
believed by all the world, it was not only necessary that there should be
prophecies to make it believed, but that these prophecies should exist
throughout the whole world, in order to make it embraced by the whole world.
707. But it was not enough that the prophecies should exist. It was
necessary that they should be distributed throughout all places and
preserved throughout all times. And, in order that this agreement might not
be taken for an effect of chance, it was neces