OK, just so everyone knows, it IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO MAKE COPIES OF MUSIC YOU HAVE PURCHASED.

There is about 30 years' worth of case law and SCOTUS decisions that say so.

The RIAA can go screw.

stjohn: OK, just so everyone knows, it IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO MAKE COPIES OF MUSIC YOU HAVE PURCHASED.

There is about 30 years' worth of case law and SCOTUS decisions that say so.

The RIAA can go screw.

According to RIAA - no copy of music is ever legal. Hell, they'd sue their own recording studios for copyright violation at this point.

Uhm..... how could they possibly know this guy had done this? The only way I can think of is he had his directories open on a file sharing network...

I'd like to formally state that I intend to completely and fully support the RIAA's "not even one copy" ideology. I will do so by vowing never to EVER AGAIN obtain a copy of any RIAA-owned music. Further, I will never again buy a copy of an album from any music company which allows the RIAA to sue on it's behalf, until and unless that company severs all ties with the RIAA and formally apologizes to every person ever sued by them, and repays all money extorted from consumers by them.

Anyone else with me on this?

-Disagrees

Because People in power are Stupid: -Disagrees

i heard a metallica cover of the garbage hit "only happy when it rains" on Sirius.

a part of me died.

Wow, that really pisses me off.

So what is the real legal "truth" here? Is ripping a CD you own (and continue to own) and storing a WMA/MP3 of the tracks on a PC legal or not? What governs the legality of this, exactly? Is it in the license agreement or in law, or what?

nashBridges: stjohn: There is about 30 years' worth of case law and SCOTUS decisions that say so.

The RIAA can go screw.

That's not true. At all.

I buy CD. Cd gets worn out. Can I go to record company to get free new CD in a few years time???

/Ug.

Just wait, 2 years from now, the RIAA will be suing people who hum songs.

Peaves: Just wait, 2 years from now, the RIAA will be suing people who hum songs.

You just try and hum "Happy Birthday" without a license and see where it gets you.

I'm just glad that they couldn't get away with this shiat in Canada.

RIAA sez "Your moneyz! We r grubbing it!"

nashBridges: each purchase of a CD ... you make comes with a license agreement you implicitly acknowledge

Really? Where is this license? Did I sign it in my sleep when I made the purchase? Was I given opportunity to read this ethereal license before the transaction?

Your argument may hold watter with the ITMS or other online shops with lots of click-through legalese, but no such documents exists when I go to the record store and buy a CD. All that applies is normal copyright law, and things like the Betamax case have clearly established at least some "fair use" exemptions to the temporary monopoly that copyright grants.

I am married to a copyright attorney

Then I would hope you know all this already, as it's fairly basic. Either that, or you should be able to point out this mythical "license" I was granted on purchase of a CD in excess to normal copyright law.

So by exension anyone with an iPod or Zune or whatever other MP3 player they may have would, in fact, be guilty of illegally copying any music that those consumers did not create themselves?

Never mind all the crappy albums and CD's I've purchased over the years with ONE good song on them?

dahmers love zombie: I'd like to formally state that I intend to completely and fully support the RIAA's "not even one copy" ideology. I will do so by vowing never to EVER AGAIN obtain a copy of any RIAA-owned music. Further, I will never again buy a copy of an album from any music company which allows the RIAA to sue on it's behalf, until and unless that company severs all ties with the RIAA and formally apologizes to every person ever sued by them, and repays all money extorted from consumers by them.

Anyone else with me on this?

Been doing that for years now. I listen to OTA radio, XM subscription (which is as far as I'll go towards the RIAA getting money from me), and my collection of direct download or CD indy music has grown substantially.

I've found that with few exceptions, I prefer the indy stuff over the mass-marketed one hit albums anyway.

/shrug

Peaves: Just wait, 2 years from now, the RIAA will be suing people who hum songs.

Or listen to a radio station

nashBridges: stjohn: There is about 30 years' worth of case law and SCOTUS decisions that say so.

The RIAA can go screw.

That's not true. At all.

I'm very sorry, and I don't agree with it, but if you want to press the issue then you better have your own legal fund behind you. I am married to a copyright attorney, and each purchase of a CD or digital download you make comes with a license agreement you implicitly acknowledge.

All of those agreements stipulate that you cannot make an unauthorized reproduction of the work without prior approval from the copyright holder. Unless the agreement actually states you can make your own copy, you are legally bound to the terms from the copyright holder. If you cannot find something along the lines of "purchaser is granted permission to make a copy of this work" then it's not legal.

Sucks? Yes. Impractical? Yes. Unfair? HELL YES. But do not think you can walk into a court of law and debate fine print you've already agreed to. Purchasing a DVD, or a CD, or a book is, from the industry's standpoint, tantamount to entering a contract agreement with the content provider. Copying the work violates that contract.

Um...no.

Implicit contracts aren't valid. See any number of cases regarding the click-through licensing agreements with software.

ack... stupid typos...

$post =~ s/watter/water/g

xtex: Uhm..... how could they possibly know this guy had done this? The only way I can think of is he had his directories open on a file sharing network...

THIS.

Ah, EULAs. The little bit of shrinkwrap licensing which allows companies to take away all your consumer rights - so they can sell them back to you piecemeal. Nothing quite like being legally compelled to purchase the rights you had for free five years ago.

Well they don't have to worry about me ripping one of their CDs, since I haven't bought one from them since they started suing their customer base. Die quick and die hard, RIAA.

nashBridges: stjohn: There is about 30 years' worth of case law and SCOTUS decisions that say so.

The RIAA can go screw.

That's not true. At all.

I'm very sorry, and I don't agree with it, but if you want to press the issue then you better have your own legal fund behind you. I am married to a copyright attorney, and each purchase of a CD or digital download you make comes with a license agreement you implicitly acknowledge.

All of those agreements stipulate that you cannot make an unauthorized reproduction of the work without prior approval from the copyright holder. Unless the agreement actually states you can make your own copy, you are legally bound to the terms from the copyright holder. If you cannot find something along the lines of "purchaser is granted permission to make a copy of this work" then it's not legal.

Sucks? Yes. Impractical? Yes. Unfair? HELL YES. But do not think you can walk into a court of law and debate fine print you've already agreed to. Purchasing a DVD, or a CD, or a book is, from the industry's standpoint, tantamount to entering a contract agreement with the content provider. Copying the work violates that contract.
Section 107 of the copyright act creates a right to "fair use"
The four factors:

-the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
-the nature of the copyrighted work;
-amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
-the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Courts have always upheld "mix tapes" and their ilk as fair use, simply transfering the medium for personal use is also generally allowed.
This would at minimum need to be specifically be disclaimed, and I sort of doubt they'd actually be allowed to do that for consumers. (And I certainly haven't seen a proper disclaimer on any CD I've bought recently)
Do note that this doesn't protect cracking encycption and such, which the DMCA still makes illegal (arguable)
Oh and this won't protect you if you copy your cd and then later sell the CD, but keep the mp3s.

How long before the RIAA decides to sue me for that song that keeps playing in my head?

nashBridges: I am married to a copyright attorney, and each purchase of a CD or digital download you make comes with a license agreement you implicitly acknowledge.

All of those agreements stipulate that you cannot make an unauthorized reproduction of the work without prior approval from the copyright holder. Uhm.. not exactly..

Reasonable use also comes into play, as well as the "book rule". The book rule (roughly speaking) states that as long as not more than one copy is in "current use", then you're in the clear. The idea being based off the concept that you can't be reading a book that you've loaned out.

What you're suggesting would make it illegal for me to have my DVR record songs from a music channel and play them back later, and that's simply not supported by case law.

Heroin For Peace: All that applies is normal copyright law, and things like the Betamax case have clearly established at least some "fair use" exemptions to the temporary monopoly that copyright grants.

You should understand what Fair Use entails before trying to cite it. It does not in any way cover personal copies of entire works.

It is legal to make copies on tape. It is not legal if it involves a computer in any way.

If you make copies of music, you better be prepared to pay the consequences.

/Sue all the world
//Sue all the children

...RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy...

What a horribly appropriate last name.

nashBridges: No. And it doesn't matter. Read the small fine print on the label that tells you you agree to the terms and that you acknowledge those terms by the act of buying the CD in the first place.

They have written their agreement very specifically, and very much on purpose. You are purchasing a license to their music, on the medium they dictate, for as long as they decide. If the medium fails, then so goes your license. Your license is not carried out to another medium you provide.

It's one of the many ways the recording industry is going to kill themselves, but until the law catches up you are beholden to their archaic manner of thinking.

I don't agree with it, I'm just letting you know how they will argue if you get it in your head you can somehow win a legal argument against them. It doesn't matter if a jury sympathizes with you, the way the law is written you will lose.

That would be great if it wasn't a load of bullshiat. I can write whatever the f*ck I want to on something that I sell you, but if you haven't actually agreed to the terms, then too bad. I can sell you a football and write on it that the only legitimate use is shoving it up your ass, but that in no way obligates you to do so. Actual copyright law applies, but some supposed "contract" that I never agreed to doesn't matter just because it's in writing.

gotta love people who think the government will somehow be on their side when the RIAA sues them

I suggest a moratorium - a national "Stop Buying Music Month." Hit 'em where they live.

Peaves: Just wait, 2 years from now, the RIAA will be suing people who hum songs.

That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

The RIAA can suck it.

Heroin For Peace: All that applies is normal copyright law, and things like the Betamax case have clearly established at least some "fair use" exemptions to the temporary monopoly that copyright grants.

With the current length of copyright protection these days, thanks to the media industries bribing the US Government like there's no tomorrow, I wouldn't exactly call the monopoly "temporary."

Dr.Zom: I suggest a moratorium - a national "Stop Buying Music Month." Hit 'em where they live.

Actually not a bad idea...it would take massive organizing and a few ecelbrity endorsements, but it would certainly be cool.

What month is the biggest in terms of CD sales?

nashBridges: Read the small fine print on the label that tells you you agree to the terms and that you acknowledge those terms by the act of buying the CD in the first place.

What the fark are you talking about? Fine print? Like there's some agreement I have to acknowledge on a CD.

Let's look at an example. First CD I randomly grab from my desk is:
"MDFMK" - self titled album
012157522-2 Republic / Universal Records

The "fine print" on the CD is this:

(R) & (C) 2000 Universal Records, a Division of UMG Recordings, Inc.
1755 Broadway, New York, NY 10019. Distributed by Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws. Printed in the USA.

The only things in that block of "fine print" are the bibliographic publication information and a warning that duplication falls under "applicable laws". That's as close to a "license" as a sticker on a new car that said "Excess speed while driving this vehicle is a violation of applicable laws".

It's stating the obvious. At best, it could be considered a "courtesy notification", at worst a scare attempt at those that do not understand the details of copyright.

This "fine print" is dangerously close to being a tautology.

nashBridges: "I am married to a copyright attorney"

If it pleases the court:

At this time, I would like to question the defendant on whether or not said defendant was ever in the Core.

Paedophile_Deluxe:
That would be great if it wasn't a load of bullshiat. I can write whatever the f*ck I want to on something that I sell you, but if you haven't actually agreed to the terms, then too bad. I can sell you a football and write on it that the only legitimate use is shoving it up your ass, but that in no way obligates you to do so. Actual copyright law applies, but some supposed "contract" that I never agreed to doesn't matter just because it's in writing.
Yup.
I'm trying to remember the name of the case, but in contracts there was a case involving netscape. The license agreement was physically on the website download page (but below "the fold"), but without an explict acceptance (i.e. "click-through") it was as if it didn't exist. Why? because you didn't always know you were agreeing to it.
Some agreement tucked in the liner notes soemwhere? That doesn't count, its easily missed by the 90% of consumers who just want the CD

dahmers love zombie: I'd like to formally state that I intend to completely and fully support the RIAA's "not even one copy" ideology. I will do so by vowing never to EVER AGAIN obtain a copy of any RIAA-owned music. Further, I will never again buy a copy of an album from any music company which allows the RIAA to sue on it's behalf, until and unless that company severs all ties with the RIAA and formally apologizes to every person ever sued by them, and repays all money extorted from consumers by them.

Anyone else with me on this?

Absolutely... and I have been for 3 years now.

boycott the RIAA

Check RIAA radar.

This is getting just farking insane. I hope as time goes on and more and more artists see what megalomaniacs the RIAA has become, more of them move to direct digital sales and just cut the RIAA out of the picture. I am all for supporting the musicians, but the lions share of the money from CD sales doesn't even go to the bands.

I wonder how the RIAA can justify the idea of no personal copies of music with the advent of MP3 players everywhere. Do they actually expect customers to repurchase the exact same thing in digital format a second time? What about older out of production music that is not easily available? Do they really intend to make every person in the country who happens to have gotten a cheep MP3 player for xmas a court case? They just have to be smoking crack!

Personally I have refused to give those idiots a dime of my money for years. I haven't purchased a new CD since they started crapping on the customers. I had a nice collection of CD's to begin with, and anything else I have picked up has been purchased used or comes from smaller independent labels. Honestly in the past 10 years or so, there has been SO very little that the main stream music industry has produced worth listening to, I haven't felt a loss at all due to my choice.

xtex: Uhm..... how could they possibly know this guy had done this? The only way I can think of is he had his directories open on a file sharing network...

Took it in to Best Buy, etc, for service. Grunt in the back room pokes around, says 'Hey! Free music!' Boss catches said grunt copying the guys mp3 collection, grunt makes up bullshiat story about customer being an evol pirate (ARR!), boss calls the RIAA tipline.

That or he's one of those dorks that lists his music collection on a webpage somewhere.

There's a solution to this problem: Take music away from the RIAA. Quit buying RIAA affiliated music. Support independent artists, labels and venues. fark, make your own music. Quit supporting an industry that sees you an idiot and an enemy.

The RIAA can go take a flying fark at a rolling donut. They are claiming that the Fair Use doctrine does not apply to ripping CDs. (See the 464 US 417 (1984): Sony Corp. of America vs. Universal Studios, Inc. (new window)). I say they're bursting at the seams with hot, steamy shiat. I sincerely hope they lose this case, because if not, they'll setting a ridiculously bad precedent wherein every single person that owns an MP3 player will be infringing on copyright. I personally can't see how they could win this case. Besides being ridiculous in its own right, given the extreme prevalence of MP3 players, this would impact many, many millions of people who will suddenly find themselves in violation of this newly minted legal precedent.

Hey RIAA, good luck trying to sue Microsoft and Apple for the whole CD ripping thing.

1. Put snakes on plane: It does not in any way cover personal copies of entire works.

Sure it does. The Betamax case ("Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.") was very much about time-shifting whole works.

It is legal to make copies on tape. It is not legal if it involves a computer in any way.

While the computer medium hasn't really come up yet in case law a lot, it could easily be said that the Betamax decision could extend to other technological mediums as well. I would be highly surprised if a judge ruled against this precedent.

(note - at no point here am I advocating giving copies to other people. Just time and space shifting your own CDs to things like an ipod)

Sweet, go after the people who legally purchase the stuff! I'll be safe forever!

/because I don't listen to music, RIAA. I swear.

1. Put snakes on plane: It is legal to make copies on tape. It is not legal if it involves a computer in any way.

Is there any logic to this at all, other than it's more of a pain in the ass to copy something onto a tape?

In theory, wouldn't this make DVR recorders illegal, since you are recording a broadcast to be replayed later, even at multiple times. When you loan out a CD, are you breaking the law since the loanee never purchased said disc? Libraries across the world must be breaking the law than, because the same laws would apply to books.

It comes down to this: It don't matter what they print inside the little booklet. Unless it says on the front or back of the case the disc is packaged in that opening it restrains how you can use the disc, or if a sign is PROMINANTLY displayed at every CD retailer, it's fair game. I understand distribution online of said music via torrents or file sharing programs is bad, but what these guys are trying to do is completely kill portable music players, other than lugging around a CD player that skips constantly.

The law protects consumers from agreeing to a contract if the information of the contract is withheld from the consumer. That's like me asking you to purchase a vehicle without knowing the price or condition of said vehicle.

So here's how it all works out for the RIAA: People purchase music CDs for their listening enjoyment - used in stereos, personal disc players, their cars. Those same people are then required to purchase those same CDs all over again in digital format, for use with personal MP3 devices, because they cannot simply make digital copies of the music they already farking purchased once. Those who do not comply will then get sued by the RIAA for hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Fark you, RIAA. If enough people stop purchasing music altogether, the entire industry will be brought to its knees. Which incidentally is about the perfect height for them to kiss our asses with great ease.



/that almost sounds like poetry
//viva la revolución!

nashBridges

You need to quit spreading disinformation. You're doing the average consumer a disservice by planting the seed of untruth.

If one person reads what you typed and took it seriously they'd most likely store that information in their brain for later use. It will then come up in a conversation and they will spew forth what they think is fact. You're doing nothing but distorting the reality of the situation. The end result is a web of stupidity and misconception that lends nothing to society.

Example.

Person A: I always feel sleepy after thanksgiving dinner.
Person B: Oh, that's the tryptophan in the turkey, that's what is making you sleepy.
Person A: Oh, I had never heard that, thank you.

Person C: My thanksgiving was amazing, fell right asleep after dinner.
Person A: Yep, that'd be that tryptophan.


The truth of the matter being turkey has less trytophan than beef, we just tend to gorge ourselves during thanksgiving dinner and the end result is a feeling of weariness as the body attempts to digest the large amount of food it has been assaulted with.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is..

Quit posting what YOU think is fact, your personal beliefs are not fact at all. Your "facts" are nothing but a cancerous mass on the colon of mankind, just waiting to spread.

Ok, so how does it work if you're an old fart like me and have hundreds of old vinyl records. Can I transfer to cd or download these to disc? What about vinyl that has never been released onto cd in the first place? I have already paid for these recordings and I'd be buggered if I'll pay for them twice or three times....

I'm STEALING from the RIAA as we speak!

cp stillalive.mp3 stillalive2.mp3
cp stillalive.mp3 stillalive3.mp3
cp stillalive.mp3 stillalive4.mp3
...

I'M IN YOUR MP3Z STEALING YOUR MILLIONZ

Dr Zom:
>I suggest a moratorium - a national "Stop Buying Music Month." Hit 'em where they live.



MONTH?!?! How about years and counting. Phhht!