RIAA and Kazaa

[hitech]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
Fair use clause. It's only illegal if it's proven that more then one copyrighted material was being played at once. Like you'd both have to be listening to it at the same time..

EDIT: Otherwise lending a friend a CD would be illegal.

I'm not aware of any fair use clause in the copyright laws. Based on computer program copyright laws that could certainly be deemed illegal.

[hitech]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
Now wait a minute. I'm licensing intellectual property for personal use that just happens to be recorded on a CD...Then anytime I've broken or permanently scratched a CD I still should retain that license.

And you should have no problem making a copy of that CD to keep for backup purposes. That has been held up for computer programs. I don't see why it wouldn't for music.

[ShooterJM]

I'll get the exact wording on the fair use clause.

The problem is computer software is covered under chapter one, section 117 and specifically exempts copies made for archives.

[hitech]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
The problem is computer software is covered under chapter one, section 117 and specifically exempts copies made for archives.

Before archives were mentioned in copyright laws the courts ruled that copies made solely for the purpose of archival were legal.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

although sharing music is illegal and wrong, im still going to continue to do it. why? because I can.

If they somehow make it illegal. I will still find a new way to get my music over the internet. There is always an alternative.

[Zumina]

All of this fuss over a Rapper not being to afford yet another Bentley or a Rocker running out of Coke. I can't wait for this whole thing to backfire in RIAA's face in the form of a boycott. People sharing information (which is all MP3s really are) for free does not give RIAA the right to invade someone's privacy.

[jinxed]

Downloading MP3's when you don't own the CD is stealing, plain and simple

No.
Legally it IS NOT STEALING.
It is a copyright violation.
The law is clear on the distinction.

That doesnt make it right. The purpose of the copyright laws was to make sure the artists were credited for there work. The RIAA doesnt care about the artists, and just wants to stuff its already fat pockets.

I was watching a senate hearing last week with the RIAA.
A senetor told them that he supported a law allowing the RIAA to go and destory people's computers that download MP3s (using a virus/trojan/worm/etc).

So which is worse?

-Nick

[hitech]

Everyone is missing the point (and no, it's not on the top of my head ). Everyone keeps talking about the RIAA. How they are this big bad institution. Well, they would not exist if the artists did not sign contracts with them. Why do they? Because they are trying to make a living like everyone else. The artists own the copyright to the material. They sell those rights to someone who then distributes it. Simple economics. Whenever you download copyrighted material without paying whomever hold the copyrights the original "artist" also looses. They typically get royalties.

Now, I'm not a big fan of the RIAA. When we went from records to tapes I understood the tapes costing more. They cost more to produce. However, CDs cost less to produce that tapes and DVDs cost less than tapes. Why do they cost more? Because "they" believe they can get more. And that I do not like. However, the bottom line is that sharing is still illegal. Regardless of whether we like it or not.

[ShooterJM]

Yep, if I remember correctly the average royalty an artist gets is around 8 cents per $14 CD.

If RIAA is concerned about the artists I'll just send em a dime and let them keep the change.....

What RIAA should have done was embrace napster, and put a SMALL fee on each song. Like from one to 50 cents depending on the song. hmmm napster had a customer base of what 5 million users a month? Figure 5 million downloads per month, 12 months, 20 cent average. That's $12 million bucks per year. They would have made even more because Napster would have paid to allow them to continue the service. Freakin shortsighted morons....

[bluefan101]

www.riaa.com</b> read the about us link.

Shooter's on the right track with a part of the copywrite legislation. Once you <b>buy</b> a cd, tape, VHS, DVD, etc. That becomes your property. You own a piece of that copywrite. You can make personal copies for yourself..backups, whatever you want to call it. However, what the legislations states is that if you make unlicensed copies of that material to be used in a public setting, selling...as in bootlegs, or any other unauthorized retransmition of the property, you are in violation of copywrite. How many RIAA people, or local law enforcement officers have you seen at your local flea market or swap meet?? None I bet. Why? Becuase you may have one guy <b>selling</b> 100 illegal copies of music, but on the internet you have over 3 million <b>giving</b> them away.
I <b>do</b> recognize the rights of the artist to claim their intellectual property rights, but I don't think that they need to resort to gestapo tactics to accomplish their goal. The old men in politics are debating IP tracking and piracy clauses for the recording industry. If you believe strongly enough to take action against the government for the freedom of privacy on the internet, get involved. The recording industry is going to present its case whether you do or not.
Even though I agree with the sharing of information and good music, I still support the musicians and artists by buying their cds and records.

<b>The ACLU is fighting for your right to privacy.</b>

Edit: Sorry this is so long..

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by ShooterJM


Now wait a minute. I'm licensing intellectual property for personal use that just happens to be recorded on a CD. That's what your saying I'm doing when I buy a CD? That the CD is just the medium that's used for trasfer purposes?

You didn't think that you were buying a piece of plastic for $15, did you? It's what's on the cd that is worth money, not the plastic.

...and I do agree that if you present a damaged disk, they should replace it. Unfortunatly, I don't believe they do this for audio cd's; this is one thing that I think the recording companies should do. I actually plan on sending an e-mail to time-warner to see what their policy towards this is.

I thought I heard that certain companies will allow you to present a damaged disk for a replacement.

Yep, if I remember correctly the average royalty an artist gets is around 8 cents per $14 CD.

It's not about royalties. For most artists, it's about getting their name out in the open so that their popularity can (hopefully) spread. Without the recording industry, we'd never hear about most of the bands/artists that we enjoy listening to today.

Now, come to think of it, I also do not agree with some of the anti-privacy things that the RIAA is pushing towards. To a certain extent, file-sharing has brought this upon themselves. If IP tracking for MP3's is now, what's next?

I buy CD's. They are overpriced, but my favorite bands are not super-hyped rap artists, cookie-cutter punk/alternative bands, or boy-bands. I personally feel that I MUST buy these cd's in order to show the recording industry that there is a demand for their music and hence encourage their sponsorship/support.

[xmetal2001]

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367
You didn't think that you were buying a piece of plastic for $15, did you? It's what's on the cd that is worth money, not the plastic.

...and I do agree that if you present a damaged disk, they should replace it. Unfortunatly, I don't believe they do this for audio cd's; this is one thing that I think the recording companies should do. I actually plan on sending an e-mail to time-warner to see what their policy towards this is.

I thought I heard that certain companies will allow you to present a damaged disk for a replacement.


It's not about royalties. For most artists, it's about getting their name out in the open so that their popularity can (hopefully) spread. Without the recording industry, we'd never hear about most of the bands/artists that we enjoy listening to today.

Now, come to think of it, I also do not agree with some of the anti-privacy things that the RIAA is pushing towards. To a certain extent, file-sharing has brought this upon themselves. If IP tracking for MP3's is now, what's next?

I buy CD's. They are overpriced, but my favorite bands are not super-hyped rap artists, cookie-cutter punk/alternative bands, or boy-bands. I personally feel that I MUST buy these cd's in order to show the recording industry that there is a demand for their music and hence encourage their sponsorship/support.

Yeah, I was just trying to make a point. I'm interested to see what response you get. My point in bringing up the 8 cents per album was because a lot of times we hear the RIAA proclaim people are stealing from the artists (like Metalica who desperately need those 8 cents to pay for rehab....) Not to mention a napster type system would get the artists more money then CD sales, and the turn around time would be crazy! Think of the singles you could sell! The single has pretty much DIED in the US because no one want's to spend $4 to $7 for a single song! But if it was a buck and you released it ahead of the CD release. Man.

Now I agree. I do the same thing in CD purchasing. But I've stopped buying new CD's in protest of the RIAA's stance. Which kinda sucks because I was one of those people who'd pick up 20+ cd's a year. But hey.

Also, FYI, I haven't downloaded a mp3 in copyright violation in oh....geez....say 5 or 6 years.

[superdesk2007]

The prices of CD's are just to much. 16 bucks for a Led Zeppelin CD with 6 songs! I remember I could get a CD for 10 or 11 bucks.

[ShooterJM]

Yeah what I find interesting is that when the RIAA shows the CD sales have slowed and therefore file sharing is at fault, NO ONE mentions the economic slowdown OR the fact that CD prices were raised.....