What if the CD in question was ripped to a shared computer? Should each user be required to pay for it again?
I’m all in favor of artists being paid for their work. I just think that the RIAA needs to get over their model of physical recordings and figure out a way to make the system profitable and easy for everyone.
Robin
The best possible way to completely destroy the CD industry is to make it illegal to copy them through computers to iPods and mp3 players. People will simply stop buying them altogether.
These music people remind me of the Kamikaze Scotsmen from the old Monty Python series.
I don’t have any specific articles to cite, but I regularly read Billboard for my job and nearly every issue features one article concerning declining compact disc sales following by multiple articles detailing rising sales of downloadable music, ringtones, video game soundtrack licensing, etc, etc.
I don’t follow it as closely as you do, but my understanding is the same - that “physical music” sales have been falling for years. I don’t know if labels make as much profit on downloads as they do on CDs.
This story requires more detailed investigation:
If “fuck 'em” is how you feel, then more power to you. You have an absolute right as a consumer not to purchase products that you don’t want. However, if “fuck 'em” means “I’m going to go ahead and acquire their products for free,” then the R.I.A.A. is absolutely justified in labeling you a thief and you should expect to get nailed like the woman in Minnesota.
I believe that all blank audio and videocassette tapes sold in Canada already come with such a surcharge that is distributed to copyright holders because it is expected that blank tapes will be used to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Why not extend that policy to flash drives and MP3 players?
What’s your point exactly?
It’s illegal. It always has been. You can make a copy for your personal use, but as soon as you give it to someone else, that’s copyright infringement. Historically, record companies have not bothered to go after this kind of thing, because it was so small scale, but with digital technology, “mix tapes” made by “professional DJs” have become a major profit industry and the hammer has come down on some of them.
It’s not a new issue:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcopyright2.htm
and see this thread where we talked about the issue and the RIAA’s conflicting positions on the issue: Can I legally copy my music then sell the originals? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
And this thread requires more detailed reading… by you. See posts #33 and #35 where your point was already addressed. Obviously the RIAA is either inconsistent about this issue or they recently changed their stance, because their web site contradicts things that they’re saying in open court.
Because charging people for something illegal that you think they might do with something is an insanely moronic idea to begin with? And because adding that surcharge and having it still be illegal to make unauthorized copies is taking a terrible idea and making it ten times worse?
Then steal the music by downloading it online, then mail the money directly to the artist, because truthfully speaking, that’s really the only way the artist will see any of it. You don’t even want to know what the cut is for album sales to the artist.
I am shocked that musicians haven’t come together and formed their own recording industry where they can put out there own music and get paid for it thereby cutting out the recording industry entirely. It isn’t just about the money. with all of the post processing, brick wall limiting and compression that happens to the music in the industry, the music is destroyed before it ever gets burned to CD. Many artists are getting tired of this.
Take any current album that you have in your library. I guarantee you that it is a crispy digital husk of what the music was originally created to be. The amount of compression that goes on behind the scenes has squeezed almost every bit of life out of the music. This is done so that the music is as loud or louder than all other music out there. Then when the radio stations get it, they compress it some more so that all of the music is the same volume on the airways. The result is lifeless music, and I’m not simply referring to the lack of talent out there.
So, how close an SO does the person have to be before this becomes a non issue, or is it always an issue? Can my wife rip a song onto a compilation CD for her own listening pleasure if I owned the CD prior to our marriage, or only if I bought it after? How about if she bought it after we were married, but I’m the only person who works, so it’s “my” money that she’s using? How about if it’s been previously ripped to her hard drive, but someone got drunk at our Xmas party and put the original CD in the microwave and wrecked it, can we still listen to the song? Suppose she grabs a CD that I had made from albums that I purchased and listens to it? Doesn’t this all seem pretty stupid to you? Wouldn’t adapting to new technologies benefit both the artist AND the record company, while also allowing the end user the freedom to utilize new technology? Of course it would, but doing so would mean giving up total control of the product, and the RIAA just can’t conceive of that, so they are vigorously alienating every person on the planet as they desperately flail about attempting to forestall their inevitable extinction.
A lot of snipping leaves:
If this is true, then anyone who buys a tape has been licensed to copy whatever they please, as many times as they please. Whatever will fit on the tape.
Peace,
mangeorge
Remembering that this applies only to Canada: Not necessarily. I don’t know much about Canadian law, but my guess is that this is not a safe assumption.
The RIAA seems determined to put the worst possible face on itself. I don’t think many people disagree with the principle of paying artists for the works they create. But the RIAA insists that in order to pay the artist a dollar for his or her work, you have to pay the RIAA ten dollars as well.
The general public has the perception that the RIAA is doing nothing to earn the money they want. They don’t actually create the art that they insist on being paid for. They’re just using their financial clout to put up legal barriers that forces art to be distributed in a manner that benefits them.
It’s a self-defeating policy. Eventually they will alienate enough members of the general public that public pressure will lead to legal changes. Laws will be passed that are much more unfavorable to the RIAA then the ones they could have gotten by reasonable accomodation.
::cough:: Guns! ::cough::
I don’t agree with copyright laws. Downloading music isn’t stealing; listening to your buddy’s CDs isn’t stealing; watching videos on youtube isn’t stealing; reading books in the library isn’t stealing; in general, enjoying the fruits of someone else’s creativity without paying them is not stealing. Period. I’m surprised its taking this long for our economy to reveal the error we made in originally thinking so.
Of course, the RIAA and MPAA are taking my disapproval of “information property” to another whole level. Now it is becoming outright hatred.
Pit away.
For a short time in 2004-05, it was explicitly legal to download and upload music in Canada, but this court ruling was overturned on appeal. However, you are allowed to make copies for personal use only.
From Wikipedia (File sharing in Canada - Wikipedia):
I doubt this very highly. For every Doper who posts “oh yeah, I’m not buying anything else from RIAA artists!” (and I don’t believe that more than 1% will follow through on that, I mean, come on) there’s 1,000,000 other people who are going to quite happily send money in to pay for not just CDs and MP3 downloads, but for movies, XM radio licenses, to go to concerts, to in effect pay the RIAA more and more money.
These companies all have power because YOU, yes YOU out there give them the power, and the vast lowing herds of rabble have no self control whatsoever to participate in a boycott. They might last for a week, maybe two, but as soon as their kid starts screaming “I want it!” they’ll open up the purse and buy it.
The RIAA will win, and continue to win, because people in general like their addiction to music, movies, radio, and the ever-present TV too damn much. That’s an opinion, not fact.
Being Swedish, I just want to clarify something. The RIAA and MPAA have their tentacles here too, and Sweden has signed the Berne Convention along time ago. IOW, it’s just as illegal to fileshare here as it is in the U.S. However…
A court case a couple of years ago resulted in the uploader (it was a Swedish production, BTW), got a heavy fine. This in turn means that the industry can’t get records from ISPs about who has what IP-number, since the cops will only get a warrant if the minimum sentencing would be two years jail time. It doesn’t stop the industry and their [del]bullies[/del] lawyers and lobbyists from trying the same kind of bullshit here that is mentioned in this thread.
Not a pitting, but a correction: libraries, and loaning out of physical books are generally seen to be covered by the fair use portion of most copyright law. One of the things that I hate most about the RIAA and MPAA’s drive on copyright is that they’re trying to gut fair use.
I know little of any law. But I seem to have gleaned from somewhere (Judge Judy?) that you can expect to get something for your money. Remember, this is a surcharge, not a fine. Nor is it part of the cost of the tape. As described, it is a fee for copying intellectual property. A profit.
I don’t know why you’re arguing your points with me. I do not represent the RIAA or agree with any of their fair use bullshit. What I was saying is that the point of the OP is that the RIAA is saying you cannot rip a CD **even for your own personal use. ** That’s what the debate is HERE (according to the OP), not if your wife can borrow your CDs or use them as coasters or whatever. The issue, as I understood it, is that you cannot even rip a CD for your OWN use. Obviously that means you can’t rip one for someone else’s use either, if that holds water. I didn’t say I agreed with it.