RIAA dirty tricks.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: kasparov
Pretty soon, all fair usage rights will be killed.

If you are going to complain about losing rights you should at least know what rights you are talking about. Fair Use covers using samples from a piece of copyrighted work for journalistic, educational, and/or criticism/coment purposes. Fair Use does not entitle you to make copies of copyrighted material you legally own for personal use.


Lethal

Fair use does allow for educational and personal use. It does not allow you to sell copyrighted material. Look it up.
An example of protected fair use is being allowed to photocopy articles at a library.

Educational use, as I already mentioned, could be covered under fair use. But complete copies and/or personal use? No. It's not covered by Fair Use.

From copyright.gov
"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."


Care to point out the "personal use" part?


Lethal

EDIT: You photocopy at the Library example is only Fair Use if you copy parts of the work (not the whole) and it is used for one of the purposes mentioned above (education, research, news reporting, etc.,).

 

[Triumph]

Well, I could copy my own CD's to "criticize" them in the car.

I do know that it used to be legal to copy your OWN cd's for your OWN use, as a backup, per se. I used to have a subscription to Stereo Review in the mid-90's, and this was a frequent topic for discussion because digital copying was just emerging then. I should try and find the issue, there is a 2 page article on the topic. Point being, it used to be legal, now it isn't. Gee, wonder why that is? Corporate lobbying maybe?

 

[KC5AV]

I am completely in favor of fair use policies, but p2p sharing is piracy. There is a difference. Sure, there need to be some major changes in the recording industry, but piracy is not the way to enact those changes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Harvey as a conservative I also think that Eminem is crap, I don't think the government should do anything to stop him. I just think he sucks

 

[AvesPKS]

So, would anyone have a problem with an MP3 collection made up solely of songs recorded from the radio?

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure but I don't think it's actually legal to record songs from the radio.

One thing I wonder about is whether all of us, including myself, pay enough attention to our own personal ethics ? I mean in the world as it is now it's easy to spend all of one's time working and playing and not a lot of time actually coming up with a personal code. I like to think that if most people took the time to develop a personal code of conduct, and tried to live by it to some extent, the problem wouldn't have to be addressed by making copyrighted works less accessable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Evadman
File sharing is nto at issue here Harvey, and everyone else saying filesharing is good/evil. Filesharing is ILLEGAL, and I am sure everyone knows it. Just because silesharers buy more CD's than other people does not make it right. You don't own it, don't download it. You own it, don't share it. You buy it, make a backup copy. don't "lend" "give" "share" that backup copy. it is a BACKUP.

Whst is at issue is the lenghs that the RIAA is going to to go into my system and see what I have on it. The RIAA is trying to prove that the constitution can be changed and minipulated with enough money. Artists should get paid more then the pittance they get now. The reason file sharing came about is becuse CD's are inherently overpriced. the CD costs 10 cents, and is sold for $15. Of that $15, $2 is cost of manufacture, shipping, sales, advertizing, and suppot. $2 is the retail stores profit. So where does the other $11 go? not to artisits. it goes to the RIAA. These #'s were made up baised on the fact I am too lazy to look up the real ones, but I am sure they are close baised on my 7 years of retail purchasing for many different companies.

Basicly, the RIAA is trying to stomp on our liberties to secure their income stream. if they actually looked it it, they would see they are causing all their own problems.

Exactly.
Except I don't even care about what CD prices anymore, I'm so sick of this. I just want the RIAA to get the hell out of my government. That's what this issue is all about. The case that the RIAA just won here says that they have the right to look at your internet traffic for copyrighted material and that your ISP's have to help them, at the ISP's expense. I don't see how anyone can defend that level of privacy invasion, or of the harm to one industry for the benefit of another.

 

[Tom]

Yea, but the reason it is happening is not the RIAA.

It is the thieves that are responsible. It is impossible to have a free society unless the members of that society behave responsibly. Too many people who only give a sh;t about their own collections of stolen goods leads to everyone losing part of that freedom.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I wonder how much the average underground band loses due to file sharing? Do you ever hear artists that are not on major labels complaining? I think it would be a safe assumption that the underground scene has benifited tremendously due to p2p. This helps get their music out there for people to hear. Most of these bands don't have the money to finance a marketing campaign like bands off the big 5 do. I have bought plenty of CD's from bands whom I had never heard of due to file sharing. If I can't hear an artist first to tell if I like it or not I sure as hell won't spend $15 on a CD. That would be like buying a painting without knowing what it looked like. I'm sorry that the artist off the major labels might not be able to buy their new Escalade or whatever, buy I do think it really is helping the more obscure bands out. I would like to see their opinion, not Metallica's and Madonna's.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Yea, but the reason it is happening is not the RIAA.

It is the thieves that are responsible. It is impossible to have a free society unless the members of that society behave responsibly. Too many people who only give a sh;t about their own collections of stolen goods leads to everyone losing part of that freedom.

Uh... no. Sorry, man, law doesn't work that way. That's like saying that just because there is a string of robberies in my neighborhood that the police have the right to search everyone's homes. Scapegoatism is the philosophy that tyrants exert on the weak-minded. You should learn not to fall for it.
And that doesn't even add in a much more important factor: it is impossible to have 100% theft protection for copyrighted material. Can't happen, won't happen. Especially with audio. If it can be played, it can be copied. Sorry to say, this is nothing new. For as long as I can remember, the recording industry has been fighting good technology and innovation in their "gith against piracy." First, 8-tracks... then they ruined radio because of fears that people were recording it. The ONLY reason that the recording industry went with CD's were because the 8-tracks had failed, they were becoming excessively worried about the audio cassette copying, and they believed (at that time) that the consumers would never be able to copy CD's.
The only thing new about the current developments here is just how evil the RIAA is proving itself to be. I have over 2,000 albums in my legal collection. I have not bought a new album in 2 years. I will NEVER buy a new one from them again. RIAA, kiss this long-time customer good-bye! <^>

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

I don't understand where the liberal/conservative thing comes in.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dparker
I wonder how much the average underground band loses due to file sharing? Do you ever hear artists that are not on major labels complaining? I think it would be a safe assumption that the underground scene has benifited tremendously due to p2p. This helps get their music out there for people to hear. Most of these bands don't have the money to finance a marketing campaign like bands off the big 5 do. I have bought plenty of CD's from bands whom I had never heard of due to file sharing. If I can't hear an artist first to tell if I like it or not I sure as hell won't spend $15 on a CD. That would be like buying a painting without knowing what it looked like. I'm sorry that the artist off the major labels might not be able to buy their new Escalade or whatever, buy I do think it really is helping the more obscure bands out. I would like to see their opinion, not Metallica's and Madonna's.

That's what this is really all about. The real danger for the RIAA is not that some 12-year-old is going to download Brittany's latest song. The real danger is that the recording industry is just that: recording, production, and distribution. Hello, powerful personal computers and the internet! We don't need them anymore.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dparker
I wonder how much the average underground band loses due to file sharing? Do you ever hear artists that are not on major labels complaining? I think it would be a safe assumption that the underground scene has benifited tremendously due to p2p. This helps get their music out there for people to hear. Most of these bands don't have the money to finance a marketing campaign like bands off the big 5 do. I have bought plenty of CD's from bands whom I had never heard of due to file sharing. If I can't hear an artist first to tell if I like it or not I sure as hell won't spend $15 on a CD. That would be like buying a painting without knowing what it looked like. I'm sorry that the artist off the major labels might not be able to buy their new Escalade or whatever, buy I do think it really is helping the more obscure bands out. I would like to see their opinion, not Metallica's and Madonna's.

metallica was an underground band for a long time and achieved much of their popularity in their first 6 years through bootleg swapping.

of course, they still don't mind if you swap bootlegs.

but you're right, the RIAA is more worried that P2P will radically change the distribution system of music and leave them pointless.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov
How are my assumptions wrong? How have you ever lost money due to P2P technology?

First, you're right about my being a liberal, but sounds like you assume that's a dirty word, so let me set you straight. I'm proud of being compassionate and of caring about the environment, the rights of women to control their own bodies, and lots of other parts of supposedly "liberal" views, and I'm proud of the label. I'm even more proud of it when brainless so called "conservatives" try to hang it on me like it was something to be ashamed of. OTOH, your assumption that I'm a liberal because I think Eminem is tasteless twaddle suggests your logic is couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. I know plenty of "conservatives" who find him at least as offensive to good taste and common human decency as I do, so yes, your assumption is invalid.

Second, I have not been fortunate enough in my musical endeavors to have music on the market that others could rip off. However, over the years, my clients have included many musical artists, ranging from the the not so, and not yet, famous, to names you hear every day, as well as their producers, mixing engineers and the recording factilities they use. If you have downloaded any of their music, you have stolen from them. If they ever have to tell me they can't pay my invoice or go with a project because they're short on money, then yes, YOU have cost me money.

It really doesn't matter if I have personally lost money through file sharing. It's just plain WRONG! to steal their work product. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt you want others sticking their hands in your pocket to steal any part of whatever it is you do that you think has value.

Hmm.. right on both assumptions. You are a liberal. And, no college P2P'er has taken money out of your pocket.
Do you think Britney Spears or Pearl Jam couldn't afford you if some kid got a couple of his song off Kazaa? What if he taped it off the radio?
Do you think that these kids deserved to be tracked and put away like common criminals just because the CEO of Artista records lost 5 bucks?
Tell me how honest folks are losing their jobs because of P2P..

I don't understand where the liberal/conservative thing comes in.

It is a side observation which has little or nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: dparker

Originally posted by: kasparov

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kasparov

I don't understand where the liberal/conservative thing comes in.

It is a side observation which has little or nothing to do with the conversation.

Oh. Ok.

 

[Tom]

"Uh... no. Sorry, man, law doesn't work that way."

It's exactly how it works. People are supposed to obey the law, not because they might get caught, but because it's the law. Law which is designed to facilitate human interaction and a productive society, in the judgement of the people. If too many people break the law, in the case of P2P because they think they can't get caught, then the laws will be rewritten to make it easier to catch them. The status quo, of rampant piracy, isn't going to be allowed to continue.

In the process freedoms and protections will be lost. I think this is a shame, but the blame for it is the people who cause the current system to break down by breaking the law.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Uh... no. Sorry, man, law doesn't work that way."

It's exactly how it works. People are supposed to obey the law, not because they might get caught, but because it's the law. Law which is designed to facilitate human interaction and a productive society, in the judgement of the people. If too many people break the law, in the case of P2P because they think they can't get caught, then the laws will be rewritten to make it easier to catch them. The status quo, of rampant piracy, isn't going to be allowed to continue.

In the process freedoms and protections will be lost. I think this is a shame, but the blame for it is the people who cause the current system to break down by breaking the law.

If too many people break the law, I think someone seriously needs to examine the law in question and possibly reevalute.

 

[Tom]

Yea, that is another alternative, like prohibition.

But I doubt if there is a majority who is in favor of doing away with copyright law. I think it's more likely that enforcement abilities and penalties will be increased, like the situation with drug laws.

 

[kasparov]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Yea, that is another alternative, like prohibition.

But I doubt if there is a majority who is in favor of doing away with copyright law. I think it's more likely that enforcement abilities and penalties will be increased, like the situation with drug laws.

Great.. lets start the "copyright wars" just like we've started the "drug war". Since the "drug war" is a win-win situation for everyone right?

And in this war, we can take away 19 year old college students for downloading mp3s. Let's give them 5 years of hard time. That'll teach them to respect record companies.

 

[Tom]

LOL, the drug war isn't meant to be win-win. There are supposed to be losers.

Jail time for downloading mp3s is probably excessive. Just a felony record for 1st timers is probably better.

 

[AnyMal]

I think most of you folks need to take Basic Economics and learn about supply/demand model. The basic rule states that as long as there is a demand for a given product at a given price, someone will supply such product. Should the product be of inferior quality or priced too high, the demand will inevitably drop leading to drop in offering prices.

Some of you mentioned paying up to $17.00 per CD. I don't know where you guys shop, Best Buy usually has new releases for $10.00

 

[spanner]

The way I see it, the only way to get the music industry to back off is to get rid of this "I cannot live without music" attitude that goes around. As soon as the industry gets back to realising that people buy music out of choice and not necessity, maybe they will understand how good they have it and learn to leave well enough alone. As for downloading music, its not like I can't afford to buy it, its just easier to download it and hit delete if I don't like it. It certainly beats trying to fing new music on the crap radio we get here or MTV which shows dumbass reality shows half the time, then I have to go out in the cold to buy the full CD even though I only want the one song. In other words, if the music industry wants to get paid for the songs I listen to then how about a Kazaa like subscription service, and make it affordable dammit.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: AnyMal
I think most of you folks need to take Basic Economics and learn about supply/demand model. The basic rule states that as long as there is a demand for a given product at a given price, someone will supply such product. Should the product be of inferior quality or priced too high, the demand will inevitably drop leading to drop in offering prices.

Some of you mentioned paying up to $17.00 per CD. I don't know where you guys shop, Best Buy usually has new releases for $10.00

Many people don't live near a Best Buy. The only places around here that sell CD's are Wal-Mart (who edits the CD's and has a very limited selection) and the music store in the mall (Can't remember the name of it. They also have a very limited selection and their prices are between $17 - $20 for a single CD). That is completely ridiculous in my opinion. Be glad you live near a BB, but the closet one to me is an hour and a half away, and no CD is worth that.