Is the RIAA going too far?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>This is huge for the RIAA. They believe that every time an existing medium is obsoleted, you should have to repurchase the same works in the new format. They could get away with it before because there was no easy way to move music from a record to a cassette, or from a cassette to a CD. But once a song is digitized you can now move around and convert it easily and listen to it forever. Game over - no more selling someone their fourth copy of The White Album or the Eagles Greatest Hits.</p>

<p>When I buy an artistic work, I expect to be able to use it for my own personal use for the rest of my life. The music companies refuse to sell me music under those terms. I have not purchased any recorded music for myself in over 5 years.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Though stealing music is incredibly easy, I personally feel that I should pay for anything I use. But the idea that I can only enjoy music I purchase while near a CD player is ludicrous.





What the RIAA needs to realize is that they don't really have a choice about whether or not technology impacts the business model that they have created.





It's going to happen.





What they need to do is position themselves to do well with the new marketplace that is emerging.
 
Well at least they say the following in the article "The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone." Still amazing...
 
I know of a family who had to pay $10,000 because their 12 year-old was downloading. The RIAA and MPAA have so much power that they can get the rules bent in their favor.





Some people say that you have a moral obligation not to pay for media at this point because of how those dollars continue to support the legal machines that keep this kind of stuff going. And, everyone knows that if you download torrent files and use ip blocking software like peerguardian that you're virtually untrackable. And of course, copying DVDs is so easy, it's like a joke now.





So, yes, they're going too far, but some people are responding.
 
I can understand suing people who distribute copyrighted products. Artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work.





But preventing your from using something you buy in the manner you want to use it is going too far.





And doing so only encourages the kind of behavior they are trying to prevent.
 
WINEX, I just read that Post article. I agree....what a load of crap ! I've uploaded many CD's onto my iTunes account....uh, I wasn't supposed to do that ? What ?!
 
I have every CD I have bought ripped to MP3 on my computer. I use it to listen while I work and to load my MP3 player with songs. Since the CDs I have ripped were all obtained legally, I don't see how use of the same music in different forms violates fair use laws. (And I don't have, nor would I ever install any P2P applications on any of my machines)





I wonder why the RIAA hasn't gone after WinAmp or the Apache Foundation. (WinAmp has a product now that will let you stream MP3s on your computer over the internet. The Apache webserver includes a module for streaming music too)
 
I'm stunned. I've never stolen an MP3 or downloaded a torrent in my life, but I'm floored at this development.



How did they figure out somebody burned thier own stuff on thier computer?
 
That's one thing I am wondering. This is pure speculation, but perhaps he setup a web server so that he could stream music and listen to it away from home.
 
<p>When I hear of this kind of abuse, the more I want current copyright to be abolished and replaced with a simple shortened protect edrights period similar to patents. </p>

<p>IMHO, 5 years and it should be public domain. As it currently exists, companies are setting up perpetual exclusivity.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
Cliffs notes:



Don't leave MP3's on a server that can be accessed on/by P2P networks.



The RIAA is attempting to pile on this guy. Nice way to make future precident.



In order to protest the RIAA, I only buy used CD's anymore. I heart yardsales.
 
Reviving the thread back from the dead:



I have spent about $200 on CD's over the past, oh, three weeks or so via Craigslist.



I have aquired around SIX HUNDRED (600) used, non bootleg, purchased CD's. Maybe 80 are garbage, another 40 or so duplicates.



Eat me Itunes. Eat me harder RIAA.
 
The issue for the license holder is that, each time when you buy something used, or download for free, they don't make a profit. This applies to video games, music CD's, movie DVD's, and even used books.



In effect, bootlegging something online is not much different from buying it used, because they're not making a buck. But consumers won't stand for restrictions on resale of used goods, so the companies have to bend over on the issue. One way to get around it, is to change the format of the media, forcing you to buy it all over again.
 
I came up on loot AGAIN. These were a little spendy at $5 a disc, but I got:



- The entire Beatles Catalog

- Frampton Comes Alive

- The Police Reggatta De Blanc (last hole in my catalog)

- 10 random CD's including the Eagles, Midnight Oil, a couple of others.



I now have 6186 songs in Itunes. That's 17.4 days of music.



I think I need an intervention.
 
Damn, No Vas ! That is impressive !



Now I'm going to have to check to see how many days I have....I'm guessing, one ? ;-P



edit: In my Mac, I have 501 songs, 1.5 days. On my thumb drive I have four times that (downloaded it from my PC iTunes account...plan on someday figuring out how to get it into my Mac iTunes account)



So I guess I have about six days between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top