Would You Believe The RIAA Would Go Back On Its Word?
from the shocking! dept
Following the news of the RIAA suing XM for daring to come up with a device that lets people record their satellite radio offerings, it seems worth reminding the RIAA how they swore up, down, left and right that they would never, ever file such a lawsuit. Ray Beckerman points to a press release quoting the head of the Consumer Electronics Association and the Home Recording Rights Coalition, Gary Shapiro, reminding the industry of their past comments. If you remember, during the battles concerning new laws (such as the INDUCE Act) or lawsuits like the Supreme Court's Grokster case, whenever anyone would point out that these laws would have effectively stopped things like the VCR or the iPod, the entertainment industry would say that was ridiculous. They would never file lawsuits to stop devices that allowed "private, noncommercial consumer conduct." Shapiro points out that: "The lawyer that signed the complaint against XM is the same lawyer who told the Supreme Court that ripping a CD to a PC and then to a handheld device (without paying any royalty) is lawful. He represents the same industry that, in seeking 'inducement' legislation, promised that it would never be applied against devices such as a TiVo personal video recorder." And people wonder why no one trusts the entertainment industry these days?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
why bother
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silly Sue happy bastards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Petty criminals
Once you make the leap of logic from seeing the RIAA as a legitimate organisation to acknowledging that they are just a criminal extortion racket who simply haven't yet been broken up and prosecuted it will no longer be shocking. Are we shocked when burglars rob houses or rapists commit sex crimes? No. The RIAA are just mafioso gangsters that nobody has had the courage to stand up to yet.
They would never file lawsuits to stop devices that allowed "private, noncommercial consumer conduct."
Which is interesting because the XM device is incapable of exporting its data, therefore it can only be used in a private non-commercial capacity. It is technically impossible for it to do otherwise.
"RIAA will by the nature of their* complaint kill themselves it's just a matter of time".
Absolutely. Quite so. With each development their audacity and disrespect grows. There are some very big fish in the sea and it's only a matter of time before someone squashes them like a bug. There is a saying about giving a man enough rope to hang himself. Let them keep raising the stakes.
"And people wonder why no one trusts the entertainment industry these days? "
They never did. The entertainment industry has always been a hive of drug taking low life social failures compensating for their inadequacies through petty power politic. In the past they knew their place. The RIAA are the worst of them all, too talentless to be artists, too dumb to be businessmen, and now it seems too greedy to be criminals. Real criminals at least know where the limits are so as not to make powerful enemies. Know what I'm saying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The New Boss of RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Petty criminals
What a great tagline!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
huh?
Change the law? ME?
How exactly would I, as an individual, change the law? Who would even listen to me speak? You promote use of due process to defeat a monolith of a company like RIAA who looks for ways to avoid due process. What an idiot.
There is just no talking to liberal extremists, is there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
How much does the RIAA pay you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
In response to your second point: Don't blame the RIAA? They are the ones who bought and paid for the bad law in the first place! And don't give me crap about "protecting the artists", because they don't give a damn about the artists. They are money grubbing, plain and simple. By the rational they are using here, any company that makes an AM/FM/Cassette unit could be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
I don't blame the RIAA for trying to protect themselves and their copyrights (notice how I didn't say anything about the artists.) Nor do I blame myself for trying to protect my rights as a consumer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point >>WTF
RIAA has a point by Rob G on May 18th, 2006 @ 5:27am
Hey, I like free music as much as the next guy but I gotta defend the RIAA here. First of all, they are suing XM, not individuals. Second, the DMCA clearly prohibits players like the Inno. In fact, the previous generation of portables, XM2GO, is arguably illegal also. If you don't like it, change the law don't blame RIAA for protectecting their artists and copyrights.
Is taping a song off the Radio illegal as well?
Were not these bandwidth feeds provided by the FCC?
Is the FCC not a tax-supported office?
Then we paid for it.
Likewise, if we pay for XM we can record whatever comes out of it.
IF this activity IS, indeed, "illegal" according to DMCA, then the DMCA is illegal, in my opinion. Many have been trying to get this "law" changed and thrown out. The "demand change" applies, but this is the legal system we're talking about.
And this "First off, they are suing XM" ... that makes it ok? Who gets to make up for profits lost in legal battles? XM?? No, the individual subscribers will see their bill go up. So, in fact, RIAA is suing all the individuals that currently, or in the future, use XM Radio!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow...
Pro RIAA - 1
Anti RIAA - The rest of us :)
"The entertainment industry has always been a hive of drug taking low life social failures compensating for their inadequacies through petty power politic. In the past they knew their place. The RIAA are the worst of them all, too talentless to be artists, too dumb to be businessmen, and now it seems too greedy to be criminals. Real criminals at least know where the limits are so as not to make powerful enemies"
I don't need to say anything when he put it best. the RIAA is a bunch of low lifes who don't understand that once you pay for something, it becomes yours. I have a unit for XM that allows me to pause and record the radio i here, though i have not used that feature, its retarded to sue a company for it. It's not like im giving my head unit to my buddy to listen to. Sometimes you wonder what idiot sits in his office saying "how can i piss off the world today"
Fools they are!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
XM is not allowed to create a product that allows a customer who is paying for their service that has limited commercial infringing capability, certainly no more than Sony's walkman series?
By that logic, XM having outputs on their existing products should be illegal, because they also allow copying.
I think you are running under the "unauthorized copying section", however it is cancelled out in this instance by the definition of what is illegal. It is not designed primarily to circumvent, their is a large commercial purpose(aka walkman), and it is not sold specifically to circumvent anything.
The people are already paying for access to the music, this immediately brings Fair Use into play, and since the XM MP3 player is nothing more than that, it is foolish to consider it illegal. Now if they add a high speed burner to it, or create a filesharing system then I think I would have to agree, but giving paying customers access to what they have paid for is hardly infringment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look. You are dealing with the same people who murder palestinians everyday, who blew up the WTC , and who have taken control of the government of the USA.
Of course they are liars and criminals. We see that in their press releases everyday.
"Palestinains throwing rocks made us scared so we shot them in the head".
"Lady in podunk Georgia downloading 20 songs is going to make our billion dollar empire go broke."
"The air force was too busy that day to stop the planes that hit the WTC".
Get used to it. It will only get worse. Go watch the movie Brazil. That is our future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
Recording off the radio is fine. That's why the RIAA isn't suing individuals.
The only problem with applying the Sony Betamax case is that a new law has been passed since then and it's called the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits companies from enabling technology that can record digital music without a license. XM could do this if they wanted to pay more money to the rightsholders for a license to allow their customers to record. But XM hasn't paid for such a license.
Hey, I think the Inno is great and I will buy one if it ever hits $199. But I won't be surprised if some judge pulls them off the shelves before then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What foolish BS. Please re-read the law.
Regardless, XM licenses the music, otherwise you wouldn't hear anything on your XM radio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: why bother
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subscription
this is only going to raise the cost of satellite radio..and defer people back to their iPods in their car full of music they downloaded from Bit Torrent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
Hell while we're at it, lets shut down XM online too since people could record the songs onto their computer.
Nonsense, sir.
P.S. My XM is usually 100% clear. Perhaps the portable units don't have as good of sound quality as the car units. Or maybe you just live in the middle of nowhere?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: huh?
Where does liberal and conservative come into play here?
Isn't this is a freedom issue here on which liberals, conservatives and libertarians can agree on?
If anything liberals are against big business which is what RIAA represents.
Conservatives support big businesses like those RIAA represents.
Libertarians don't want any laws or taxes or government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fair Use anyone?
or at least it used to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bzzzz! Sorry, wrong. Please try again. Better yet, do some homework.
You're thinking about devices capable of cirvumventing Digital Rights Management systems, not recording digital music. Nothing illegal about that.
And that's not the issue anyway. The issue is whether XM needs a second license to cover the Inno. They're already licensed to broadcast the music
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
I'll say it again, this doesn't mean you can't record stuff. It means XM and Pioneer can't sell a device that records copyrighted digital music.
Also doesn't apply to a tape recorder becuase that can be used to record anything including un-copyrighted stuff.
The only thing the Inno can record is copyrighted material. Very different.
Hey, I don't make the laws. I'm just on the sidelines observing. But remember, Napster lost it's court case. Same thing could happen here.
Maybe the point is, go out and buy the Inno now while you still can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wise words from the past...
- Hunter S. Thompson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can only listen while subscribed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nor an engineer... ;-)
The "unauthorized" you refer to means circumvention of DRM. DRM and copyright are not the same thing. Everything broadcast by a radio station is copyrighted. BTW, copyright also allows certain "fair use" recording rights - that is part of the issue here. The Inno incorporates DRM, that's why you can't transfer it to another device. Again, the issue here is licensing.
And BTW, a key difference with the Inno vs the iPod is you pay once to download to the iPod and can then play it forever. With the Inno if you cancel your XM subscription you can't play the music you have downloaded. The Inno and it's contents are tethered to XM - you own the Inno but never own the music you recorded. That actually provides a higher level of DRM than the iPod, Tivo, etc. I'm guessing that XM could also enable an end-date for recordings and that may become a negotiating point with the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
First off, the RIAA and the major labels effectively paid to pass bills like the DCMA. These are the same types of legislation that caused us to go to war with Britian in the late 1700s. If we're going to have this kind of legal system, the sacrifices of Washington, Jefferson, and even Lincoln were a waste and we might as well turn the reigns back over to the British crown.
Secondly, the assertion that the RIAA is "protecting their artists" has repeatedly been proven to be a false claim. I've never seen or heard an artist who claims to have more than a small profit, if they profit at all, from album sales. Most claim they end up owing money - after being forced to turn the rights for their property over to the labels (a violation of the Constitution proclimation on coyright) if they want widespread distibution. Not only aren't the artists seeing any of the RIAA settlement money, Sony is even being sued becuase they are paying their artist "sales" royalties instead of "licencing" royalties when this whole debate centers around the fact the cliam downloaded music is a licence not a sale.
Anyone who thinks the industy is doing this for the artists, or that the artists in any way benefiting from this (other than a very very small handful) clearly aren't paying much attention to what the artists have to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
Does that make it OK for George Bush to break the law and record your phone calls too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know? Probably depends on whether he paid the RIAA licensing fees...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
Just because a law is a law, doesn't mean it is a just law. That's how they play for keeps, and for power. When everything you do is illegal, you don't even need to step out of line for them to arrest you.
Police states start with fear of being arrested without doing something illegal.
A cd of mine got scratched the other day and was unplayable. I had a backup on my computer. Do I have fair use rights to listen to that backup or must I go out and buy another copy? Hell, if I don't have a right to copy it, why isn't there a warranty on the damned thing to replace it if I'm only liscensing the music?
You know what? Fuck the RIAA. Most, and I do mean most people will try their best not to break the law.. unless they can't help but break the law. What happens when you want to buy a cd that the RIAA won't release anymore? (This happens all the time). Do you just give up on the music?
Remember, most people don't want to break the law, but if the majority break the law, then it's a BAD LAW. Do you get it? Laws can be BAD and FLAWED.
Laws can also work perfectly for a period of time, and then end up being bad. Take one stupid law about a woman driver having to have a man run in front of the car to warn other drivers. That was OKAY for a while.. now? No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
XM's stock is down on news of the suit and some analysts are predicting that the parties will solve the dispute with higher license fees.
Can we just be honest for a second though and admit that XM is pushing the boundaries? First they have devices that stream only. Then they have devices that stream and record but they can only record blocks of time, not individual songs. Now they have a device that allows you to build a library of digital tracks. That would be fine except for the fact that XM bought a license to stream not build libraries. If that's what they want to do, let them pay the same fees iTunes, Rhapsody and Sirius paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
I pay once for the item and (for my exclusive and personal use) do with that item exactly as I please.
That is fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Petty criminals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Serisously now....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $$$$$$$
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=08&month=05&year=2003
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: $$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
If XM were to pay recording artists and songwriters a free market rate for the right to sell both performances and downloads to subscribers, they would pay a heck of a lot more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
record music for FM radio - not illegal, can't sue radio stations
record music from XM - not illegal, can't sue XM
Money hungry people piss me off!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can record SIRIUS on my PVR
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Petty criminals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
Just one, we'll wait.
...One should not hold strong opinions on that which they do not understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The New Boss of RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
-Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reccomendations
Im going to go ahead and record write over the FM band on my stereo.
Lets all band together and kill the record industry, none of that money makes it to the bands anyways (unless their complete sell-outs like Metallica). The RIAA is a cancer to music everyone should stop buying anything from them and they will die off once the money is gone. Unfortunately by purchasing songs legally your only helping to fuel the machine that sues anyone they possibly can.
Bands make money from concerts and t-shirts so actually the more you share their music for free the more people will attend concerts and buy t-shirts thus resulting in a positive gain for the musicians the true talent we pay homage to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reccomendations
Im going to go ahead and record write over the FM band on my stereo.
Lets all band together and kill the record industry, none of that money makes it to the bands anyways (unless their complete sell-outs like Metallica). The RIAA is a cancer to music everyone should stop buying anything from them and they will die off once the money is gone. Unfortunately by purchasing songs legally your only helping to fuel the machine that sues anyone they possibly can.
Bands make money from concerts and t-shirts so actually the more you share their music for free the more people will attend concerts and buy t-shirts thus resulting in a positive gain for the musicians the true talent we pay homage to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Petty criminals
Any lawyer-types familiar with RICO and RIAA, please feel free to comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Petty criminals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perjury?
It also sounds like good ammunition against the RIAA in any and all lawsuits.
"The plaintiff lies when it suits them and has gone so far as to lie to the Supreme Court."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: why bother
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
1) Somebody hears your song on broadcast or satellite radio, they like it, they go to iTunes and pay 99¢ for it, you get paid.
2) Somebody hears your song on XM radio, they like it, they click a button and it goes into their permanent library.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can finally Agree with Mike on Something...
Good article.
Regards,
ThinkSolveDo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
That being said, I still hate the RIAA and love seeing more negative press on them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
1) I don't give the rights to the RIAA or anyone affilianted with them.
2) I give the song away for free
3) If it really is a great pop song, I make my money off my concerts and non-music goods.
Your arguement (point) is completely off base because as previously mentioned unless the artist is a huge sellout (Metallica) they don't make any money off of music sales. Artist make most of their money from business that the RIAA is NOT involved in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
Another point that everyone knows but I feel must be referenced again and agin is that they want 150K per song that a user copies, not the cost of the song, or the value it could possible generate without such capacities, but 150K PER SONG!
That alone is enough to obviously prove that they are in court to make money, not to protect anyone, just to rape and steal everyone's money.
They are dooming themselves with each and every case that they do this sort of thing in.
More and more people will "see the light" about these legal thugs and they will change from being "defenders" to "offenders" in the eyes of everyone but the most ignorant of shut-ins.
I wonder how much of thier extortion money winds up as "campaign contributions"?
Does anyone have any information about this?
Does anyone know who and how much and what the politicians voted for after recieving such?
How about this, lets all write our representatives and attorney general of your respective state to investigate the RIAA for extortion and harrassment?
Perhaps if a hundred people in each state sue in civil court against the RIAA for harrassment at the same time they will be forced to default on those suits because they can't afford to defend themselves in a thousand places at once.
(Sweet Irony since most people don't have enough money and must default and pay the extortion when the RIAA sues them.)
Please consider these ideas and contact the EFF for some idea of how we can unite to rid ourselves of these legal bullies.
http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: RIAA has a point
1) Somebody hears your song on broadcast or satellite radio, they like it, they go to iTunes and pay 99¢ for it, you get paid.
2) Somebody hears your song on XM radio, they like it, they click a button and it goes into their permanent library."
XM pays for the license to play the music, presumably with the money their customers pay to listen to the music. By downloading the song for 99c from itunes, it is still going into their permanent library. If I go out and buy the CD in a store, the CD itself is semi-permanent, and it is not illegal for me to make "backup" copies of the music. How is your question relevant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
to DAVID
So I'll bite, what the hell do you do for the music industry. This aught to be gooood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: to DAVID
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where will they stop?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ok i'm sold!
Who do i make the check out to? Adolph or anti-christ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ok i'm sold!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA being duped by the lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unethical?!? That's strong. The law is pretty clear that making a copy is perfectly legitimate. I have a hard time seeing how it's unethical or particularly different than any other recording system which is perfectly legal.
In this case, it's even more "ethical", because it's where people have already paid for the music and the music is limited to this particular device.
Allowing people to record like that means that people won't be buying the albums, plain and simple.
That's a huge assumption, and one that is almost definitely incorrect. Since this is a very limited application, recording like this often increases interest in artists, increasing sales, increasing interest in other things: such as concert tickets and merchandise (where artists make their money anyway).
That amounts to nothing more than stealing, and it hurts the industry and the people in it.
Again, this is false. I've gone over this a thousand times, but recording a song is NOT THEFT. Even the Supreme Court says so. In fact, many artists disagree with you, and note that this type of thing increases interest in their music, allowing them to make much more money. Studies for file sharing have shown that this is true -- and so it's hard to see how recording from a service people paid for would somehow hurt the industry.
Sorry, spitting out the industry line doesn't work here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know why David
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The RIAA isn't suing individuals for recording songs. They are suing XM for making a recording device that can record only copyrighted material.
The Supreme Court is OK with things like Xerox machines, tape recorders and VCRs because they can copy anything whether it's copyrighted or not. But the Supreme Court is likely to feel very differently about a device that records only copyrighted music.
Plus, the fact that XM tried to buy a license from the RIAA but was unable to agree on price makes the whole thing "willful infringement." And that's gonna cost them a lot more money if this thing ever goes to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA isn't suing individuals for recording songs. They are suing XM for making a recording device that can record only copyrighted material.
There's nothing wrong with making a device that can record copyrighted material. What law have you been reading?
The Supreme Court is OK with things like Xerox machines, tape recorders and VCRs because they can copy anything whether it's copyrighted or not. But the Supreme Court is likely to feel very differently about a device that records only copyrighted music.
Um. Wow. You need to go back and hit the law books again. You do realize that any piece of content has an automatic copyright on it? So, Xerox machines, tape records and VCRs copy only copyrighted material too.
Hell, what about TiVo? Considering that it only records what's on TV, that's quite similar to the XM device and that's perfectly legal.
The *actual* legal standard is if it has substantial non-infringing uses. And, recording something for private, non-commercial use is considered as such. Check out the home recording act...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Recording can help increase interest in an artist, but it also can hurt sales; and in the end, it is the artists and the record companies that own the rights to the songs, not you. It should be their decision whether or not to allow you to have the song for free in hopes that you buy the album.
Finally, it's important to realize that it takes more work than just by the artists to get a product completed and out on the market. The producers, marketing people, the people in the cd pressing plant, the people that signed the artist - none of them make a cent when you see the band in concert, or when you buy one of their t-shirts. It's the same in any industry. Would it be ok to steal an I-Pod and justify it by giving $20 to the guy that designed it? Of course not, because there were other people involved in the process of getting that product out on the market that should be getting compensated too. Why should it be different for music? The simple fact is were it not for all these people working in the music industry, you would never have heard of the band, never gone to the concert, never have bought their t-shirt. Why are they undeserving of being compensated for their work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DMCA
"Xerox machines, tape recorders and VCRs copy only copyrighted material too."
Yeah but if you xerox your own poetry you're not breaking the law.
"Hell, what about TiVo?"
TiVo hasn't been tested in court. It could lose. Of course, if it did, Congress would pass a law making it legal.
"The *actual* legal standard is if it has substantial non-infringing uses."
Name one non-infringing use for the XM/Pioneer Inno.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That still doesn't explain how listening to music you like is somehow unethical.
Second, what you're paying for when you pay for digital radio service is to hear the songs when they are played over the radio, not for the right to listen to anything that has ever been broadcast at any time whenever you feel like it.
This is false. You have ever right to record the music you listen to for your own listening pleasure.
Recording can help increase interest in an artist, but it also can hurt sales; and in the end, it is the artists and the record companies that own the rights to the songs, not you. It should be their decision whether or not to allow you to have the song for free in hopes that you buy the album.
Again, this is a drastic misunderstanding of the law. The artists have the right to say how they sell the song, but what you do with it, beyond distributing it to others is perfectly fine. When you bought your car, did Toyota or whoever tell you they can stop you from driving it on weekends? No, once you bought it, it was yours.
Finally, it's important to realize that it takes more work than just by the artists to get a product completed and out on the market. The producers, marketing people, the people in the cd pressing plant, the people that signed the artist - none of them make a cent when you see the band in concert, or when you buy one of their t-shirts.
Cry me a river. And when the automobile came along, were you standing up for the poor buggy whip makers who were about to go out of business? If they can't figure out how to make money when the technology changes, that's not our problem, it's theirs.
Would it be ok to steal an I-Pod and justify it by giving $20 to the guy that designed it?
No, but not for the reason you describe. In that case, it's a tangible product where something is lost. Making a personal copy for yourself of a song you PAID to listen to is not, in any way, the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, read it again. Nowhere does it say what you claim it said. Please point to the clause.
Yeah but if you xerox your own poetry you're not breaking the law.
Um. That's not the point at all. You said it was for non-copyrighted works, which is not true.
Name one non-infringing use for the XM/Pioneer Inno.
Er, the main one! Letting people record the music they listen to. That is legal. 100% legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lifetime licence fees
I bought a vinyl copy of Led Zeppelin IV years ago. I have long since lost the original album but since the advent of digital media, I have it back. Should I feel guilty because I downloaded a copy from Limewire? Why should I? I had already paid my money for it. Why should I pay twice for the same thing? Just because it's being offered in a different format? I paid for the music, not the plastic disc it originally came on.
It used to be that the recording companies had the upper hand when it came how digital media was sold.
First, there were records. Then tape. People were severly limited in how media was stored. That stranglehold doesn't apply anymore. There isn't just one or two choices anymore (record, tape) but hundreds (mp3, wma, ogg, etc.). And, unlike the record shops of old, where all artists were offered under one roof, exclusive deals between artists and distributers are forcing end users to make decisions they don't really want to. We have so many different ways of storing digital media that in order for us to get all the tracks we really want, we have to have several different programs running on our systems because companies such as Apple & Microsoft have decided to try and keep their customers locked in to their format. In today's world, this is virtually impossible.
Obviously the old way of doing things isn't working. We all know that. These days, it is not possible to protect digital media, unlike the past where we were limited by technology. So let's face that fact and try and find a solution that doesn't involve making consumers ligitation targets.
How could this be done? Let the RIAA become a library or have the record companies/resellers set up their own databases. Whenever digital media is sold, a copy of the receipt of sale is stored as a certificate of ownership of the digital media. It's being done now in a very limited way anyways. Ask Apple if they keep sales records.
I, for one, wouldn't mind paying a little extra (like $0.50) to make sure that I am legally entitled to my copy of 'Stairway To Heaven' at all times and in whatever format I want. If my computer was hit by a virus and my media library was completely destroyed, I would still be allowed to legally download it again from any file-sharing app. As long as I had a licence to have that track. I'm not saying the file-sharing apps should be made to check if you do have the proper licence tho'. That choice should still remain up to the individual. But it's about time the recording industry wakes up to the fact that past practises don't work, suing their customers doesn't work, and splintering their customer base won't work.
Gentlemen, start your arguments!. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA has a point
And, as a consumer, I hope that’s what XM does too. Because if this thing goes to trial and XM loses, we could all be saying goodbye to our TiVo boxes (that is, until Congress passes a new law).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who's to blame?
Simple answer: you can't sue yourself, right, Sony? lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
Of course they are liars and criminals. We see that in their press releases everyday. "
Wow, I'm impressed that someone could jump to anti-semitism so quickly! Nice going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fees
I cant wait for the RIAA to attack an Amish person. one who not only doesnt have a computer. but has no electricity. there is no way they could prove that they did anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
As for "protecting the artists," there is ample commentary and analysis throughout the web and blogosphere to demonstrate the old-style media moguls that make up the RIAA are protecting their stranglehold on content, not the artist's best interests.. In fact there was a big to-do a while ago when Coldplay released on their webpage how to bypass their company's security so legitimate buyers could encode their music on MP3 players.
On a purely opinion front, I find the artists that strongly align themselves with the RIAA groupthink tend to either suck, or be known assholes. I mean, really, when was the last time you heard anything about Britney Speare's music prowess?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: huh?
what happened to "by the people, for the people" again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Estoppel
There's a legal defense that's for precisely this purpose, and it's called the doctrine of estoppel. Roughly speaking, if the RIAA said they wouldn't sue you for doing X, you do X, and then they sue you, then they have an unclean conscience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
I'm no fan of the RIAA or its' tactics, but you said it right there...you're paying for the SERVICE...not the music. Is there anybody here that thinks subscribing to NetFlix means you own the movies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Petty criminals
[ link to this | view in thread ]
none
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If RIAA wins = RIAA is MAFIA
I hope when the government finds Osama Bin Laden, he is hiding under the RIAAs main offices and they nuke him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA stating the obvious
why the hell don't they offer *legal* downloads, prob with DRM along the lines of a subscription or something.
they could undercut everyone since they have no need to license themselves. (well undercutting *free* is hard) make it a decent service, make it pretty cheap coupled to a decent player availble on multiple platforms.
you want to copy to your ipod? license a small plug in for a bit extra each month and it uploads for you. store as unencumbered mp3? small extra monthly fee.
they could set it up with the cash they currently pay legal sharks. nice steady income stream.
*then* they have a better argument to shut down illegal distributors, and no real need to license anyone else either.
won't happen of course, but i bet they have a *huge* library of decent recordings among their members for stuff thats just not out there anymore.
nice monthly sub. maybe with several 'tiers' of how many songs can be in your library at once, and how many changes you can make during a month.
obvious really.
plus they can track who listens to what etc. maybe even feed targetted ads for 'extras' e.g. concert tickets etc (charge the groups for the promotion), optionally with a slightly higher sub to avoid the ads etc.
get it working and talk to a few ISPs to make it *part of the package* (at the introductory level) pretty soon a hell of a lot of people can listen to music this way, distro costs drop through the floor and if done right not too many people will bother hunting down the crack sites etc.
I'd sign up (probably), but i'd monitor closely what info was sent back & forth etc.
not holding my breath though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
Their not out to protect the ARTISTS interest.
Too bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
No one is promoting free music. This is music already paid for and owned, or if you prefre, already licensed for.
I've been taping from the radio since the 70's, and a large number of my CDs were made from my over 100 vinyl albums. No downloads involved, yet I bet if they could the RIAA would argue against it.
>Second, the DMCA clearly prohibits players like the Inno.
How does the DMCA apply to a device built by the same company providing the content? They are circumventing themselves?
>blame RIAA for protectecting their artists and copyrights.
The RIAA is only nterested in controlling their copyrights, not the artists interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are plenty of XM devices that have digital optical output. You can connect this directly to a computer sound card with digital optical input.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connections
Here's a review of the Inno:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Pioneer_Inno_XM/4505-7873_7-31824917.html?autoplay=true
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You cant find people like THESE guys just anywhere!
The cream of the crop, the best of the best, the most trustworthy and honest individuals to ever walk the earth.
Just look at those guys smile. You know you can trust the RIAA. You can tell by the way they smile. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RIAA has a point
In other words, they feel entitled to the time-tested and honored position of bridge troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: huh?
Unfortunately, free market capitalism requires that individuals participating in the free market collectively prevent any single organization, government or corporation, from gaining an unfair monopoly and control over all vital resources.
An interesting mix would be a syncretization of ultra transparent and open direct electronic democracy as advocated by the Pirate Party, in combination with ultra free market capitalism as the Libertarian Party would have us implement.
If balanced, it could work really well, in my opinion.
It would certainly cause both ultra-liberal hollywood multi-billionare celebrities and ultra-conservative investment bankers and rigged-market "capitalists" to scream bloody murder, which I would find intensely amusing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
Hey, I like free music as much as the next guy but I gotta defend the RIAA here. First of all, they are suing XM, not individuals. Second, the DMCA clearly prohibits players like the Inno. In fact, the previous generation of portables, XM2GO, is arguably illegal also. If you don't like it, change the law don't blame RIAA for protectecting their artists and copyrights.
Okay, zeroth of all, none of us are advocating free music.
We all pay taxes that are used in RIAA's blatant corporate welfare, sustaining a deprecated and obsolete business model. Therefore, everything ANY member of RIAA supposedly owns as copyright is WELL BEYOND already bought and paid for.
First of all, XM Satellite Radio was actually looking out for their consumers, like a normal, reasonable business should. They got sued for something that is a tiny variation, but a very clear logical extension of something that was extremely clearly a unquestionably legal function of a satellite music player, and what functions it had that COULD THEORETICALLY be abused were already widely available on the market, anyway.
Second of all, the DMCA can rot, as no one in their right mind would ever have passed that bill into law. So obviously, someone in congress was high on something not even the most extreme of hippies would touch.
Third of all, what the shill? Why didn't the RIAA's panties get in a bunch then? That is irrelevant, anyway.
Forthly, I DO blame RIAA and their overwhelming lobbying control and dominance in congress and the white house for corrupting the law of the land into incomprehensible insanity. Why wouldn't I? They are so obviously at fault.
Finally, I think it's about time to put an end to this corporate welfare and to tell the publishers of RIAA to put their big girl panties on, and file for bankruptcy already.
Everyone hates their guts and wants to see them thrown in a cold dank cinder-block cell for the rest of their miserable lives!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA
I saw nothing anti-Semitic in ANY of that, and my Dad is Jewish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA has a point
They want to have us pay a license fee for everything, for any reason, for any purpose.
You want to create content, go right ahead, but you pay a steep license fee. Why? Because all art is constructed by combining previous artists' ideas. Since RIAA has a 100% total monopoly of control over all possible cultural concepts and ideas, you must pay a large license fee, possibly everything you own, before actually being allowed to create anything.
Then, you want to share your half-created music file with a friend?
First, you pay a hefty license fee for encoding, then a another hefty license fee for any derivative works, real or imagined, at every layer of composition.
Second, you pay another hefty license fee for being permitted to use each and every layer of software on your computer, calculated by the overpowered trusted computing module on your motherboard.
Third, you then pay separate but individually-hefty performance and broadcast fees (which apply even if you "perform" and "broadcast" only to a single friend).
Forth, you pay another hefty license fee as well as administrative fees for your music data to pass inspection through the central licensing and authorization agency controlled and run by the RIAA under world trade agreements.
Fifth, your friend pays license fees for downloading, in addition to all license fees for every single layer of software on HIS computer. If he cant pay it, you may be forced to pay those fat fees on his behalf.
If you neglect paying your license fees, the penalty for your heinous crimes against the culture and civilization of humanity will be prolonged public torture and, finally, death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]