The RIAA Goes Insane

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
...as if they hadn't already:



Quote:

...the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.







Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html



I think this will never go through, not with the precedent that's in place for time-shifting recordings. It would also of course mean the death of the digital music revolution, which won't be allowed to happen. In my opinion the RIAA is really shooting themselves in the foot here by destroying any credibility they still had. The big labels already have screwed themselves time and time again with their approach to theft, and now it looks like they are going to go for the final suicide attempt.



Your thoughts....

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    The story was very poorly written (maybe not to attract readers). The RIAA isn't suing over ripping CDs (even though they still call it unauthorized copying) but rather what the guy did with the ripped CDs afterwards (i.e., shared them). See here:



    http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/r...erks-about-it/
  • Reply 2 of 6
    mysticmystic Posts: 514member
    Yes but they claim that they could and might in the future.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    The story was very poorly written (maybe not to attract readers). The RIAA isn't suing over ripping CDs (even though they still call it unauthorized copying) but rather what the guy did with the ripped CDs afterwards (i.e., shared them). See here:



    http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/r...erks-about-it/



    You're missing the point. No, he's not being sued over doing that specifically. But, that doesn't matter one bit. They are claiming that one of the reasons his other activities were illegal is that transferring music to your computer is illegal in itself. It's a mind boggling claim and can only serve to hurt them from a PR standpoint, since it will never become law.



    Think about it this way. Someone is sued for threatening someone else repeatedly on the telephone. In the complaint, the plaintiff claims that the act of using a telephone (for any purpose) is illegal. It's kind of like that. The person is not being sued for using a telephone specifically, but it's one of the causes of action. Come to think of it the RIAA's case is almost that absurd.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You're missing the point. No, he's not being sued over doing that specifically. But, that doesn't matter one bit. They are claiming that one of the reasons his other activities were illegal is that transferring music to your computer is illegal in itself. It's a mind boggling claim and can only serve to hurt them from a PR standpoint, since it will never become law.



    I got the point of the article. But what do you think the RIAA will say about CD ripping? It's okay. Perfectly legal go ahead and do it? Of course not. This is just more pointless rhetoric. Nothing more.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    I got the point of the article. But what do you think the RIAA will say about CD ripping? It's okay. Perfectly legal go ahead and do it? Of course not. This is just more pointless rhetoric. Nothing more.



    That's exactly what they should say. Taking the hard line just encourages more people to give them the finger. If they as an industry didn't have their heads up their asses with moves like this, they wouldn't be in the position they are in right now.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    I got the point of the article. But what do you think the RIAA will say about CD ripping? It's okay. Perfectly legal go ahead and do it? Of course not. This is just more pointless rhetoric. Nothing more.



    [edit by Amorph: Gruber posts an update that invalidates my original post:



    "A few days ago I linked to a Washington Post story regarding Atlantic v. Howell, a lawsuit the RIAA filed against Jeffrey Howell. The Post, and many other media outlets, reported that the RIAA’s attorneys have argued in their brief that merely ripping music to MP3 files from the CDs you legally own constitutes copyright infringement.



    Ends up this isn’t what the RIAA’s legal brief states. What the RIAA claims, and which led them to file suit against Howell, is that he both ripped 2,000 songs to MP3 and shared them publicly via Kazaa. Big difference."



    Yup. Big difference. Unauthorized (re-)publication is literal, by-the-book piracy. It might be useful to revisit that law in light of digital storage and pervasive networks, but that's another discussion.]
Sign In or Register to comment.