The RIAA has lost their minds!

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml

What about playing music loud enough that others can hear it? Yep. Copyright infringement.

Eyesore wrote:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml

Quote :

if you fart and someone smells it are they violating your butt?

I love that response to this article.

Screw the RIAA. They know darn well know how to sell more albums and that's by lowering the price, but the labels won't do it. They rather stuff a DVD of bootleg material and still try to sell it at regular prices. CDs are competing against video games and cheap DVDs now. This isn't the early 90s anymore when cds had less competition for the entertaintment dollar, they have to adapt if they want to be stay relevant. Gimme 5-8 dollar new releases or I'll continue to buy the majority of my music used.

Or...have a 5.88 bin of 5 year old or earlier releases. Why the heck is Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell still $11.98, but I can get every Meat Loaf's movies for $6.00 a piece?

ultmetal wrote:

I copies this information off another site, but thought this might make for an interesting discussion.

Apparently all of us criminal mp3 player owners out there should start shaking in our boots because the RIAA is coming after us.

Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

Quote :

The RIAA, which lobbies on behalf of a music industry hammered by tumbling sales as fans increasingly turn to free downloads and file sharing for their listening pleasure, insists that it is illegal for someone who has legally bought a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The rest of the article can be found here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/riaa_cds_copies_computer/

Wow! That is insane. I have spend thousands and thousands of dollars on records, tapes and CDs over the years. I own several thousand CDs. In the 80's and 90's I made myself a tape copy of my CDs to listen to in my car. What's the difference if I make an MP3 copy of my CD to listen to as long as I paid for the CD.

Shoot, in some cases, I have purchased the same album over several times. I still own some albums in both CD and vinyl format. How ridiculous to say I cannot put the songs on my iPod.

ult

What do you all think?

Couldn't have said it any better.

mc666 wrote:

i doubt you'll find anyone here who would argue against that. my problem was more with the notion that i cannot rip my cds onto my ipod to enjoy them on the go. i find the whole idea of criminalizing that to be outlandish. i seriously doubt anything like that would fly in a court of law, however just the idea of it pisses me off.

To be honest I dont know what intentions that RIAA has based the articles. The lack of information and the fact that the reporter omitted some important facts leads me to question what exactly was being filed in the brief. I dont think based on the amount of caselaw that they have any argument to make ripping cds for own use criminal. If they did I am sure they would have found someone by now who rips and sued them.

I am sure they would like to but how are they really going to monitor it? My vista media player autorips stuff when you place the cd in the drive. It would be pretty hard to establish intent. The RIAA is just barking and while some low level judge may try to make waves I do not think anything will change fair use for own personal use.

Alex

spectrefate wrote:

Or...have a 5.88 bin of 5 year old or earlier releases. Why the heck is Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell still $11.98, but I can get every Meat Loaf's movies for $6.00 a piece?

Because Bat Out Of Hell still sells - general principal of supply and demand. I'm sure you find other CD's in Meat's back catalog that don't have the words "bat" and "hell" in the title at a discount. Look at the Led Zepplin releases. A few years back when I worked for AOL I was at a company wide (all parts of time warner) recruiting meeting. At the time, Warner Music was still part of Time Warner. The recruiters at Warner Music did a presentation on their business model. The had a slide on their biggest sellers - Led Zepplin was # 1, their back catalog still sells like crazy. Madonna was high on the list, as was AC/DC and Metallica (I think Metallica was right behind Madonna in terms of albums sold at the time). At the time, they were selling millions of copies of the back catalog a year. They never drop the price of the big sellers.

Wow, the RIAA really made some good points. I'll read the article again tomorrow as a way to pass the time while I put some CDs in the iPod.

This is crazy, how can backing up the cd you paid for be illegal? I rip all of my cd's to my ipod. I don't understand where the RIAA is going with this. If they are suggesting that in addition to buying the cd you must also purchase a copy for you ipod and computer then wouldn't that just expediate the end of the cd. Who is going to buy the same album twice or more to stay legal. I really enjoy having the media, but not at the price of paying twice. If need be I would be forced into buying the album for my ipod instead of the media (which I would rather have). I am all for copyright protection, but this is rediculous.

How about offering an enhanced cd that can be copied at a higher price and the regular cd that can't be copied.

7thSecond wrote:

This is totally ridiculous. I put all of my cd's on my computer and then burn them for playing elsewhere so as not to scratch my originals. How awful of me wanting to protect my investments.

Same here. That is ubber rediculous and really uninforcable. I mean, how in the hell could they inforce that... put a homing device on the CD that alerts them when they are put in a computer?

thejokeriv wrote:

spectrefate wrote:

Or...have a 5.88 bin of 5 year old or earlier releases. Why the heck is Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell still $11.98, but I can get every Meat Loaf's movies for $6.00 a piece?

Because Bat Out Of Hell still sells - general principal of supply and demand. I'm sure you find other CD's in Meat's back catalog that don't have the words "bat" and "hell" in the title at a discount. Look at the Led Zepplin releases. A few years back when I worked for AOL I was at a company wide (all parts of time warner) recruiting meeting. At the time, Warner Music was still part of Time Warner. The recruiters at Warner Music did a presentation on their business model. The had a slide on their biggest sellers - Led Zepplin was # 1, their back catalog still sells like crazy. Madonna was high on the list, as was AC/DC and Metallica (I think Metallica was right behind Madonna in terms of albums sold at the time). At the time, they were selling millions of copies of the back catalog a year. They never drop the price of the big sellers.

That make sence. For exemple in Spain you can find all AC/DC albums very cheap, only BACK IN BLACK is more expensive and in some stores i found HIGHWAY TO HELL to be more expensive too, then the rest of AC/DC back catalog.

Rampant
Insanity
And
Avarice

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/avarice