Feeding the Beast -- RIAA now says . . .

[ddgryphon]

In this article: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php from the EFF. It seems that the RIAA (which I now dub the Self-Serving Hypocrites Institutionalizing Tripe – you build the acronym for yourself) you can buy and listen to the albums, but you can’t shuffle, rip, backup or in anyway you like preserve your purchase or use it for your own enjoyment in anyway but the packaged, original format.
This creates problems on numerous levels:

1.) These are the people that are basically ripping off the artists positioning themselves as the artist’s guardians.

2.) Many things I own, I can’t buy again, even if I wanted, because they are simply not available.

3.) The recording industry structure is at best feudal leaving the artists as the low peasant on the farm (sure they live better than most peasants, but they do the heavy lifting and get paid poorly (proportionately based on profits) not in comparison to what I make for what I do.

4.) They now have powers and are engaged in as many personal rights violations as any wire-tapping government agency–without oversight.

5.) Every time I buy a DVD or a CD I support their drive to limit my rights as a listener and consumer. I’m supporting their crackdown on everyone – even my mother-in-law who used a “gasp-the horror!” tune from a Simon and Garfunkle disc to make a memory tape for her daughter’s wedding shower.

We keep feeding this beast with every CD and DVD we buy we help put power into their hands to limit our rights with what we buy. Imagine that you couldn’t give that old couch to your son for his new apartment. I’m sorry when you purchased that couch, you only licensed it for use in your living room. If you want your son to use it, you’ll have to pay an additional fee, or buy a new one specifically for his living room. (imagine the same scenario if you changed residences – got a new home, you got to buy a new couch, the old one can only be used in your current residence. Can’t reupholster that baby, it is changing the packaging.

This really steams me!

Sorry, had to get it off my chest – may belong in the pit, but I tend to hang out here pretty exclusively and wanted to share this latest bit of RIAA madness with people I know it will affect.

[MrJackboots]

RIAA Radar, for all your boycotting needs.

Every time I pass up an artist because of the affiliation, I write them a letter explaining myself. I’ve gotten a few responses, even. Eventually I like to think it might have an effect.

[Szlater]

@ddgryphon

In this article: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php from the EFF. It seems that the RIAA (which I now dub the Self-Serving Hypocrites Institutionalizing Tripe – you build the acronym for yourself)

I’ve always liked The Register’s abbreviation, ‘The Recording Industry Ass. of America’.

@ddgryphon

We keep feeding this beast with every CD and DVD we buy we help put power into their hands to limit our rights with what we buy.

The way I look at their dealings, and those of the MPAA and BPI, is that they are the death throes of failing cartels. They were too slow to take advantage of the new technology and as a result are suffering the consequences.

Their tactic of equating P2P downloads as ‘lost sales’ and putting a dollar figure on it is disingenuous, but they have bought enough political support to prop them up in their last few years and make their ridiculous claims and pronouncements. As soon as artists start making their material available directly to the consumer, cutting out the RIAA middlemen and increasing their share, the cartels will die, and I think that that terrifies the RIAA members.

[rjung]

What gets my goat is this line from the RIAA’s filing (page 40):

Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices.

Yeah, I’ll just bet you’d like that, wouldn’t you? “Aw, sorry little Timmy scrached up your CDs; might as well start shelling out money for replacements, tsk tsk.” :rolleyes:

[RealityChuck]

@ddgryphon

This creates problems on numerous levels:

1.) These are the people that are basically ripping off the artists positioning themselves as the artist’s guardians.

Whereas you, OTOH, are basically ripping off artists while posing as their admirer.

How much are you paying them for the privilege of making a copy of their music? Even less than the RIAA pays them for the same privilege, I bet.

2.) Many things I own, I can’t buy again, even if I wanted, because they are simply not available.

I can’t buy an new Edsel even if I wanted, simply because they’re not available. But since I want one, I should be able to steal any one I happen to find. Right?

3.) The recording industry structure is at best feudal leaving the artists as the low peasant on the farm (sure they live better than most peasants, but they do the heavy lifting and get paid poorly (proportionately based on profits) not in comparison to what I make for what I do.

So because the RIAA rips off artists, you feel you have the right to join in? If you feel they are doing the wrong thing, why don’t you do the right thing and send money to the artists for the right to copy their music (like the RIAA does: they may not pay very much, but it’s more than what you pay)?

[quote]
4.) They now have powers and are engaged in as many personal rights violations as any wire-tapping government agency–without oversight.
[/quote}Yes, the RIAA is scum. But people who copy (and especially share) music are ripping off artists even more blatently. Does the RIAA’s actions give you license to rip off the artists, too?

5.) Every time I buy a DVD or a CD I support their drive to limit my rights as a listener and consumer. I’m supporting their crackdown on everyone – even my mother-in-law who used a “gasp-the horror!” tune from a Simon and Garfunkle disc to make a memory tape for her daughter’s wedding shower.

Tapes can legally be used for recording; the artists are being paid. Your mother-in-law is supporting the artists, something you refuse to do.

We keep feeding this beast with every CD and DVD we buy we help put power into their hands to limit our rights with what we buy.

And what exactly do you propose to put in its place? The only reason you know about at least 90% of the music you bought is because of the efforts of the record companies to promote it. Without record companies, no promotion. Without promotion, even the best musician is unheard – or has to give up music because he can’t afford to pay his bills.

Imagine that you couldn’t give that old couch to your son for his new apartment.

A silly and irrelevant example. You can give your CDs to anyone you choose. You can put the CD in new packaging if you wish, and sell it. You just can’t make copies.

If you get a new apartment, are you allowed to have a free couch just like your old one?

So, tell me, have you ever paid for the right to copy music to your computer? Do you send a check off to the musicians when you copy your music onto your comptuer. If not, then you’re worse than the RIAA: they pay – albeit not enough – when they do that.

Don’t think you’re standing up for artists when you’re busy ripping them off.

[Eonwe]

RealityChuck,

Calm down a bit. Read the link in the OP. My guess is he started this thread in regards to this:

“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.”

Which seems to be hinting at the fact that the RIAA feels that they have the right, if they choose to exercise it, to deny transfer of music from one medium to another, even while used solely by the original owner (ripping to an iPod, for example, or copying to the OP’s mother’s cassette.

You say,

Tapes can legally be used for recording; the artists are being paid. Your mother-in-law is supporting the artists, something you refuse to do.

… but this is the very thing that the RIAA as quoted seems to be hedging against.

Also, you accuse the OP of ripping off artists, but nowhere in the OP is there admission of illegal downloading, etc etc.

[Ogre]

When I buy a CD, it is mine and only mine. I will joyfully rip it onto my computer, transfer it to my .mp3 player, make mix CD’s with it, or whatever else. As long as I don’t make illegal copies for distribution, neither the RIAA nor the legal system should have a thing to say about it.

[MrJackboots]

@RealityChuck

Whereas you, OTOH, are basically ripping off artists while posing as their admirer.

blink I think you got whooshed, but I could be wrong.

@RealityChuck

How much are you paying them for the privilege of making a copy of their music? Even less than the RIAA pays them for the same privilege, I bet.

Well, I think he’s paid for the original disc, and he’s paying them whatever scraps the RIAA throws their way once they get through with it. RIAA probably isn’t paying them anything above-and-beyond that. Traditionally, media transfer and backup are accepted consumer rights - if I have a BetaMax tape, I have the right to make a backup to VHS. If I have a book and don’t want to mark it up, I can make photocopies and take notes on those. If I have a program on CD, I can make a backup disc in case the original one gets messed up (the EULAs often used to say this explicitly, even).

Are you saying this is wrong?

@RealityChuck

And what exactly do you propose to put in its place? The only reason you know about at least 90% of the music you bought is because of the efforts of the record companies to promote it. Without record companies, no promotion. Without promotion, even the best musician is unheard – or has to give up music because he can’t afford to pay his bills.

Uhh… how about a company that lets him exercise his fair use rights? That’s not too much to ask, is it? I know I’ve only bought music from companies that don’t pull this crap, to the tune of a few hundred dollars a year, and none of those labels has gone broke, so it’s certainly sustainable.

We’re not talking about giving other people copies, just putting CDs on the MP3 player or making sure you still have a viable copy if one gets scratched. You could say he bought a physical product and can make, trade, and sell as many copies as he’d like (as with, say, an antique chair or table) given the tools and raw materials, but he’s SOL if the original is destroyed. Or you could say he bought a license to listen to that music, and he can’t do that, but he gets to make media transfers or backups in case one got destroyed. You can’t have the best of both worlds.

@RealityChuck

So, tell me, have you ever paid for the right to copy music to your computer? Do you send a check off to the musicians when you copy your music onto your comptuer. If not, then you’re worse than the RIAA: they pay – albeit not enough – when they do that.

No need to send a check to the artists; when he bought the disc, he implicitly bought the right to put it on his computer, given that he doesn’t then hand the disc (and thus the right) off to someone else. At least, he did until they started imposing these Bizarro-World terms on things. I don’t think the new ones have been tested in court.

[bouv]

SO wait…are they saying that if I take five CDs, put them in a five disk changer, and hit the “random song” button, I’m breaking the law? Fuck them. Fuck them in their fucking asses.

I paid money for the CD, I have a right to listen to it however I want. If I want to listen to it backwards, forwards, out of order, mixed with other songs, it’s my God damn choice. Oh, and you know what? If I want to rip it to my PC and put it on my iPod, I’m going to do that too, because I paid for the song, and I feel I should get to listen to it in the manner i choose. What the fuck do they caerwhat I do with it after I bought it? THEY STILL GET MY MONEY whether I listen to it how they want or rip it to my iPod.

[Stonebow]

@bouv

THEY STILL GET MY MONEY whether I listen to it how they want or rip it to my iPod.

Ah, but if they make it so you have to pay for a second, digital, copy that’s playable on your iPod, then they’ll have 2 sales!

It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad. As I’ve said before, the rightness or wrongness of downloading, format switching, etc. is beside the point at this juncture- it’s so trivially easy that it’s simply stupid for the RIAA to try and tighten their control over their IP rather than look for alternatives. All they’re doing now is pissing off the paying customers- not good when you have a black market so close at hand.

[silenus]

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
-John F. Kennedy.
RIAA is rapidly becoming one with the dinosaurs.

[Larry_Mudd]

@RealityChuck

And what exactly do you propose to put in its place? The only reason you know about at least 90% of the music you bought is because of the efforts of the record companies to promote it. Without record companies, no promotion. Without promotion, even the best musician is unheard – or has to give up music because he can’t afford to pay his bills.

Dude, that is so 1957.

I don’t mean to hijack the thread further, since this is clearly not about filesharing, but my music purchases spiked in 2001 – because I was using a really good napster client. I’d search for music that I knew I liked, and when I found a user that had plenty of it, I’d see what else they had. I heard tons of great stuff that I’d never heard of that way – and then I went out and bought it. Frequently, I bought it online – sometimes from little labels that I’d never heard of, and sometimes direct from the artists. Having a bunch of .mp3s (of varying, and never perfect) quality by an artist is no substitute for having an actual CD, with perfect sound, nice packaging, and the knowledge that you’re voting with your dollars.

The problem with the dinosaur model of record promotion is that the stuff that gets promoted is the stuff that a third party is confident that they can turn a profit on. So, by default, we get a lot of crap that sounds just like a lot of other crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator. People buy it because it’s all that they’re exposed to, and you get a nice feedback mechanism of mediocrity.

Since napster shut down, I don’t use any file sharing services, because they all suck – and my music purchases are way down. But, as it happens, my last music purchase was a single Willie Nelson song – from iTunes. Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other. I sure am glad that it was so heavily promoted. Oh, wait. It’s not been promoted at all.

The RIAA wants to keep the distribution and promotion of music the way that’s worked out so well for them because it suits them. Services like iTunes render them largely obsolete, even if they serve the artists just fine – So there’s pressure to eliminate the availability of single songs, or to raise the prices to limit their purchase.

As to the OP, what a load of crap. Look, I’ve purchased every Holly Cole CD that she’s put out, because she’s awesome. I very rarely play the actual CDs, though – partly because I like to keep the original media safe, but mostly because (as much as I like her,) she usually manages to include at least one song that I’m sure I will never be in the mood for. One of my favourite albums starts off with two tracks that absolutely rub me the wrong way – so my burned copy of the album skips them. I’m sorry, but they’re saying I’ve either got to listen to I Can See Clearly Now, or wince and get up to skip the track, every time I want to listen to the album Blame It On My Youth, which is mostly solid? How does this benefit Ms. Cole? The off-chance that I might be careless with my disc, and yet value it enough that I’d be prepared to buy a replacement at full price if one of the songs starts to skip? I think it’s better for her that my listening experience is free from incidents where I’m forced to think, “Jesus Christ, Holly, why did you record this track?” She stays fresh longer, and my desire to spend money on her albums remains intact.

[Cornelius_Tuggerson]

@RealityChuck

How much are you paying them for the privilege of making a copy of their music? Even less than the RIAA pays them for the same privilege, I bet…

Don’t think you’re standing up for artists when you’re busy ripping them off.

So if I buy a legal audio disk and make a personal copy so I can keep using it after the cheap ass CD it comes on goes bad after five years I am ripping off an artist? Actually no, you are completely wrong, I am just being suckered in by the recording companies that want to sell me the same CD over again every five years by recording their wares on some of the crappiest CDs available, the artist is out of the loop by this point.

[ddgryphon]

@RealityChuck

Don’t think you’re standing up for artists when you’re busy ripping them off.

Just so we’re clear about something Chuck, I’m not file swapping, I’m not file SHARING, I’m putting my CD in my computer and making a mix of my favorites to have in my car, for me, no one else.

If there were a mechanism to send the artist a nickel for everytime I burned a new CD with their song on it (for my personal use) I wouldn’t mind it at all.

The implication here is that my buying the CD, merely gives me the right to listen to the CD. Now, I’ve made Cassette tapes for much the same thing. I pay for the CD’s to burn my new mixes on. I pay for my sad little MuVo to listen to my ripped CD’s on. They are MY CD’s I bought them.
HOW am I ripping anybody off?

[ddgryphon]

@Larry Mudd

The problem with the dinosaur model of record promotion is that the stuff that gets promoted is the stuff that a third party is confident that they can turn a profit on. So, by default, we get a lot of crap that sounds just like a lot of other crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator. People buy it because it’s all that they’re exposed to, and you get a nice feedback mechanism of mediocrity.

And here is another excellent point: I can’t remembering buying for myself a heavily promoted top 40 CD or Record in my life (wait, I bought everything by the Beatles and some Who and Talking Heads as well). I found the majority of my collection in the remainder bins and through recommendations of others.

I pay for and listen to Live365 usually world music channels. Even if I were to use a music sharing program, the odds are that there would be very little to want because they tended to have very little of what I liked. Eliza McCarthy, Snake Farm, yeah, the record companies promoted the Hell out of them didn’t they?

Back in the 70’s if we were told you can’t copy that record to cassette (or for some poor misguided souls 8-track) you have to BUY a tape to listen to it in your car, the answer would be the same as it is now: I paid you for it, I have the technology to make my own copy of it, for me.

Just to say it again, because I don’t think Chuck caught it the first time: This isn’t about sharing swapping or whatever you want to call institutionalized stealing of property. This is about being able to enjoy what you’ve paid for. If I shell out $25-$32 dollars for a CD, I’m not going to buy it again, just so I can listen to it on my computer, or while I’m at the gym.

[saoirse]

And one more excellent point:

If I can’t use the CD the way I want to, and have to buy each song individually on iTunes if I want them individually, what is my motivation for buying the CD. And if I’ve only heard three or four songs, I could just as easily skip the other eight. So it seems like this policy is going to cripple CD sales.

Anyway, the RIAA has become such a BS operation, I find it hard to believe they’ll still be around in ten years. The last three CDs I bought were minor independent label.