OT: RIAA, here we go again...

baysidebas schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 19:00 Uhr
RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use
February 15, 2006

It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year?

Apparently not.

As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs:

"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."

For those who may not remember, here's what Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

If I understand what the RIAA is saying, "perfectly lawful" means "lawful until we change our mind." So your ability to continue to make copies of your own CDs on your own iPod is entirely a matter of their sufferance. What about all the indie label CDs? Do you have to ask each of them for permission before ripping your CDs? And what about all the major label artists who control their own copyrights? Do we all need to ask them, as well?

P.S.: The same filing also had this to say: "Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...."

Posted by Fred von Lohmann at 08:40 AM | http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php

Kommentare

p@mast3rs schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 19:13 Uhr
I thought that the DMCA said that users couldnt circumvent copy protection not that users could not make a back up copy.

Thats ok, let the RIAA keep their crap up. Every time they do some stupid crap like this, it only encourages those to fight the power and download illegally.

Whats more baffling is the RIAA/MPAA still has refused to admit that the decrease in profits is due to the complete crap products they produce as opposed to the piracy they would like us all to believe.

Personally I am beginning to get overjoyed watching these modern day mafias lose their asses in the inadequate films/artists they consistently shove down our throats.

Now we now why the RIAA wanted a bigger cut of the Ipod sales and a price increase. They are hoping to FORCE users to buy multiple copies while overcharging them for each copy the user listens to and for each device.
FrigidNDEditing schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 19:20 Uhr
oooo - I'd love to go there..... MUST...... FIGHT....... URGESSS............ ahhhhhhhh

nope - not goin there

Dave
p@mast3rs schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 19:29 Uhr
Heres a thought to ponder.

Now Sony belongs to the RIAA correct? Yet, with my lovely new PSP, it allows me to rip my CDs to the PSP for playback which the RIAA calls unlawful. Hmmm.
Bob Greaves schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 19:38 Uhr
What I am really concerned about is when will the RIAA kill all the Jedi Knights?
MichaelS schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 20:29 Uhr
They've killed them all...but one.

Spot is the last Jedi!
DavidMcKnight schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 20:34 Uhr
"Help us DSE...You're our only hope..."
farss schrieb am 17.02.2006 um 20:59 Uhr
Why does anyone think this noteworthy?
It's not called copy right i.e. the right to copy, for nothing.

Down here ARIA made it quite clear some time ago that the simple act of copying a CD to a cassette so you could listen to the music on your cars cassette player is illegal. In almost the same breath they did say they'd never persue anyone for this as they had bigger fish to fry.
Yeah right.
Of course that was before the FTA, that's probably meant the USA has had to accept any restrictions that our laws impossed, e.g. all "fair use" provisions were extinguished, in return we've extended copyright from 50 to 70 years.

Bob.
TheHappyFriar schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 01:00 Uhr
hahaha... this is funny...

RIAA: It's illegal to copy from one format to another. That's not "fair use." So the cd to MP3 is illegal.

Public: Ok... but we've been doing that since reel to reel tape recorders & cassete recorders have been available to people... putting one format to another. You had no problems then, right? Technically, it's not really a format change since it's from digital to digital, just copying of bits. The medium which it's on is different, but not the format.

RIAA: We've already taken care of that. We files a suite against Merrian-Webster that the defination of "format" & "medium" are what we say they are.


these guys are nuts. There's a reason I haven't bought a CD in over a year & only have purchased two songs online ever (and that's all the new music I have!). And why I support Public Radio. The Buffalo Philharmonic NEVER gets on the radio & says "you all owe us your lives, b!tch!". :)
JohnnyRoy schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 01:18 Uhr
> They've killed them all...but one.

Always two there are... a master... and an apprentice.

> Down here ARIA made it quite clear some time ago that the simple act of copying a CD to a cassette so you could listen to the music on your cars cassette player is illegal.

Well in the US, this has to be legal because the royalty is already paid for. It’s built into the cost of every cassette tape that is sold! If they want to make it illegal, they have to refund a lot of money for royalties they’ve already collected. That would make a great class action law suit.

~jr
p@mast3rs schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 01:32 Uhr
The tax is also already figured in on every mp3 device and also cdr and dvdrs. Besides, this has gone on way too long for them to be successful. Mp3 players have been out since 1998. If this was such a problem, why didnt they make a huge fuss then? Its no different than protecting a patent. Has the RIAA vigorously defended their copyrights with regard to use on portable players? Nope. Have they received royalties from portable device manufacturers for each device sold? Yep. So please tell me how the RIAA can profit from royalties from devices it deems instruments used to break the law? You cant have it both ways. But they sure do try.
farss schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 03:44 Uhr
No tax that I know of on any of thise things you mentioned. There's a sales tax but I doubt the stakeholers in any copyright ever see a cent of it, it just goes into consolidated revenue. In some counties yes there is a levy but many would argue that's grossly unfair to the deaf, blind and those who hate music and movies but still use a computer.
As to the other part of the argument. Firstly none of those bodies owns the copyright, they represent industries and some of the players in those industries may or may not own copyrights.
But secondly the law doen't rely on how many have broken it to be invalid. If I ever get sprung for stealing cars would a claim that I'd gotten away with stealing 20 be a viable defence?

I do think that a law that's unenforceable and / or only selectively enforced needs looking at. Problem with copyright is it's common law not criminal law, it needs someone to complain to get it enforced. To those who say sharing music is theft I say fine, lobby to get it covered by the same sanctions as theft of anything else.
Myself, I don't care much which way it goes, I just want a level playing field, if I observe the law I want to know that I'm not being disadvantaged because of it.
Bob.
Bob Greaves schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 04:14 Uhr
Tax is the wrong word. Sales tax in the USA usually goes strictly to the state and local depositories.

In the USA the cost the retailer pays for some devices already includes a surcharge passed on to the retailer before the device is ever sold that pays for the royalty. In deed the music CD vs the data cd is a royalty paid up front version of the disc intended for the stand alone music CD recorders. In the USA when a retailer purchases mp3 players for resale, part of the wholesale cost pays a royalty fee for the anticipated copying.

The fact that this royalty has been paid and that the industry has arranged for and has accepted the payments constitutes a contract of sorts.
Steve Mann schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 04:45 Uhr
From Carnegie-Mellon University, a timeline of recording legislation:

>>October 1985 Senator Mathias introduces S.1739, the Home Audio Recording
Act. The bill would impose royalty taxes of up to 25% on recorders and 1
cent per minute on blank tape.

>>September 1986 Senator Danforth introduces a bill to impose a 35% tariff on
imported digital audio tape (DAT) recorders without Copy-Code chips.



Now you know why DAT never caught on here.....

Steve


Chienworks schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 11:01 Uhr
>>September 1986 Senator Danforth introduces a bill to impose a 35% tariff on imported digital audio tape (DAT) recorders without Copy-Code chips.

AHHH!!!! That explains a problem that's been nagging my own personal brain for a long time. I always wondered why a hardware-only company would produce DAT recorders with copy protection built in. What's in it for them? Now i see ... they're avoiding the tarrif.

When we upgraded our church sound system the dealer tried very very hard to include a couple of DAT machines. Even after i removed them from the contract, they somehow reappeared in the next version. Grrrrrrr. I finally pointed out that a) we were going to be recording directly to hard drive and burning CDs, b) NO ONE would ever bring us a DAT to play for accompaniment, and c) we'd prefer to use that $2800 to buy 4 more good wireless mics instead. Oddly enough the dealer thought that only c) was a valid point. So, in the last three years how many times have we had to apologize to someone for not being able to play or record a DAT? Substantially less than one.
farss schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 11:39 Uhr
Kind of funny, I make bit out of transferring DAT, I suppose at 16/48K it's a little better than CD quality. There's till a lot of it around and those aweful Sony portable things go for heaps on eBay, silly fools, about the only thing they're good at is reliably eating tapes.

I don't quite get the copy protection system with DAT though, my DTC-750 seems quite happy to copy the 44.1K audio straight from a CD via SPDIF. I know it's got some form of copy protection because the specs say you can disable it, would help if I could find a manual!
FrigidNDEditing schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 13:11 Uhr
"Well in the US, this has to be legal because the royalty is already paid for. It’s built into the cost of every cassette tape that is sold! If they want to make it illegal, they have to refund a lot of money for royalties they’ve already collected. That would make a great class action law suit."

PLEASE - I WOULD LOVE THIS TO HAPPEN.

what I really really hate is that when I try and not break the law - they make it so absurd that I've got 2 hands and a foot tied behind my back. GRRRR.

So - if converting you CD's to MP3's or WMA's or MP4's/M4p's is not going to be legal, how do, iTunes, Windows media player, Sony Vegas(CD Ripping), and tons of other programs/groups plan on getting around it? just saying - (finger wagging) "now don't you go coyping any of your copyrighted CD's by clicking this CD rip button." I mean - Windows media player defaults to that action on most XP machines. I just don't get it.

The RIAA needs a reality check - they're trying to go so crazy that they sound a little insane to me, that may just be me, but doesn't this sound like they've gone a bit powermad and are trying to say things just to sound more powerful? anyway - I'm so sick of them.

Dave
Dach schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 14:11 Uhr
Manufactures will always give the user the option to rip a CD... in all fairness there is a certain amount of non-copyrighted material out their that may justify the need to rip.

I'm not a lawyer so I am not getting involved on the wording, I suppose a intersting short flick for one us to make is a scene where some teenagers are approached by the police and have their IPODs inspected.

Personally this whole IPOD evolution is a fad, in all fairness... it is today's walkman. "look at me... look at me... look at me I have an IPOD. The RIAA will have a huge up roar when the day comes when we put our compact flash card into our car stereo (hence the replacement of the CD)

Another idea I have is for the little guy.... RIAA is alienatiing themselves and creating a whole new industry for music. Where a musician will say... its about the music...its about people hearing it... but hey this is my two cents. When its not about making money... theres a lot of freedom.
ken c schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 14:17 Uhr
lol re jedis etc... great points...

main thing I think is that a purchaser buys an individual license to replay the content for their own use, Regardless of what media they want it to be in ...

eg if I go buy Madonna's latest CD (pretty good btw), I should be able to listen to it wherever/however I want, eg rip to ipod, to my hard drive, to my xbox, whatever... I've paid to individually license the right to replay/play the content for my own use...

ken
TheHappyFriar schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 16:28 Uhr
the difference here is that with the Walkman, a company that owns music labels was the big seller (Sony). Now they are not, a 100% non-music oriented company is the leader... that's the issue. :)

Kind of like if ConAgra Foods made a brand new video editing app that sold sold like hot cakes... Avid would be furious!
fwtep schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 16:32 Uhr
If my reading of the RIAA statement is correct, then it's an understandable stance. What they're saying (again, if I read it correctly) is that they accept making a back-up copy or transferring to your iPod (or whatever) but the fact that THEY accept it can't be used as a defense if a particular COPYRIGHT HOLDER complains.

Now, of course, unless you track down each copyright holder for the songs you have you'll never really know if it's safe, but the RIAA's position is understandable: They're OK with copying to your iPod, but ultimately it's up to the copyright holder, not them, so they can't give blanket permission.

There are similar restrictions in all aspects of our lives and no one complains and posts to the Vegas forum about it.

Fred
p@mast3rs schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 17:37 Uhr
"There are similar restrictions in all aspects of our lives and no one complains and posts to the Vegas forum about it."

Welcome forum police. We will be sure to run any future idea for topics past you for your blessing to deem it ok to post. :)
dhill schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 18:26 Uhr
I'm ripping cd's into itunes as I'm typing...dual core is good. They were all purchased or gifts from record companies that are going to sue me now I guess. Oh well...I lived in a 10x10 foot room for the better part of my life (musician for a living) so I'll be right at home. No paying for meals either! haha

I think the ipod/other mp3 players are a little more than a "fad." I get what you're saying, but being able to carry your entire cd collection and now small vids with you in a 3"x2" little box is pretty cool. With the 60GB, I'm able to convert the cd's to apple's lossless codec (really good quality) so now you can carry your music collection with you in all it's full glory (almost). I read that apple sold 8 million video downloads last quarter! Let's get to work and make some mini-vids!

Any way, they could never build enough prison cells for everyone who rips their purchased disks to mp3 players, so, I wouldn't fret too much. :o) Derek
Dach schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 19:23 Uhr
I will agree with you that the compabilities of the IPOD and other like items are cool. The fact that you can carry so much music with you is very convenient.

I suppose my point of view is from the fact that I am bored with the technology and get frustrated by the RIAA and their lack of foresight. ( they have been behind since the introduction of CD-ROM) I reflect back on the fact that I had the opportunity to find my interest in the 286 processor with a Sound Blaster. The compression that was introduced with an MP3 was cool.

A very large factor for the IPODs success has been its marketing and since it came from this little company known for its propriatery devices...it must be good. (MP3 portability is what is cool)

I don't want to extend my rant here, but I must express the irony of the downloadable video clips. Who... really... wants to watch a vid on a 2" screen, when we are buying bigger and bigger tvs for our homes.

Enough for now...
p@mast3rs schrieb am 18.02.2006 um 19:43 Uhr
"I don't want to extend my rant here, but I must express the irony of the downloadable video clips. Who... really... wants to watch a vid on a 2" screen, when we are buying bigger and bigger tvs for our homes"

Ever tried carrying a 50" HDTV in your backpack or pocket? Portable video is for people on the go that has some time to kill either during commute or breaks. For me, as a substitute teacher, i am guarranteed at least 1-2 peirods a day with nothing to do in between classes so I get to catch up on shows that I miss at night while taking care of my kids and studying for certification.

The appeal of all of these portable devices is that you do not have to be tied in front of your TV or computer to enjoy the content. Anytime, anywhere. While the screens arent big enough, its a start and will only get bigger.