Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: RIAA's Latest Nonsense




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne....ap/index.html


    This was a post on SlashDot:
    Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

    Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
    [cornell.edu]

    In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
    [cornell.edu]

    "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

    The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

    http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyr...3-01/0018.html
    [cni.org]

    From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

    "In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

    From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

    "In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

    Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
    [cornell.edu]

    Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    63

    Default

    yEP SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT :cheers:
    Vulcan chicks are hot .......... Cezch chicks are hot ............ my left palm is not

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Now, I'm no lawyer by any standard - are we clear on that?

    That said, what you have posted is to the best of my knowledge true.

    However, those codified laws quoted concern only the use of a digital recording by an individual who owns a bona-fide copy of the officially distributed media.

    In other words, you have every right to make a backup copy of the songs, videos, games and other software that belong to you in the form of discs or other media you have purchased.
    Those copyrighted files can also be converted to a different format, for example changing a .wav format song to an .mp3 for use in other devices belonging to you.

    Doing those things is fine well and good, and in fact your right to do so is protected by law.

    Producing copies of copyrighted work is fine, so long as they are for private use.
    (Did you catch that part - "private use"?)

    When you make a copy of that same copyrighted material and give it to someone, that constitutes distribution.
    Sharing the media on a P2P network is distribution.
    Giving a copy to your classmate, sister, grandmother or friend is considered distribution.

    Distribution, is not condoned by ANY of the points of law which you quoted.

    In essence, if your intention was to show wrongdoing on the part of the RIAA for the course of action they have proposed, and I should assume are actively pursuing, you have failed miserably.

    Make all the copies of the CDs you own that you wish to make.
    Convert them all to mp3 format.
    Enjoy them as often as you wish.
    Let your friends and family listen to them while they are at your place or riding in your vehicle.

    That is a fine thing to do!

    But, if you make a disc for them to take home and keep -- you just broke the law.

    See what I'm getting at here?
    Everything you quoted was correct - none of what you quoted has anything to do with the action being taken by the RIAA.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    MrC as much as I do agree with your point, they cannot sue you if you give it away. If you sell it, therefore making $ of it, youre a pirate. but if you give it away, well its yours to give. YOU payed for it!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    As I said, I'm no lawyer.

    To be honest, I've never seen any of the so-called "pirates" charge money for songs, videos or software?

    No money changes hands typically on a P2P network.

    Call it what you wish, the RIAA is I believe, calling it illegal distribution.

    You may own a car - but that doesn't give you the right to give the Ford Motor Company to anyone?

    I fear you folks are skewing semantics.
    A theatre owner has to pay to show a movie to an audience - that does not give them the right to burn copies of the film to give to the audience.

    I say again, feel free to copy the media you possess as much as you like.
    Giving away or selling those copies is "piracy".
    The issue of recieving monetary compensation is of little consequence, it is illegal distribution any way you slice it.

    The RIAA probably has a building full of lawyers working for them.
    Personally, I wouldn't care to take them on in a legal battle.

    But, if you are feeling ****y...........
    I'm sure there are lawyers willing to take your money and watch you lose in court:laugh:

    That said, I agree with your statement completely.
    If you purchase an album and choose to give it to your friend, by all means do so.
    Be sure to give him your backup copies too - because he now owns the music, and you are not legally entitled to play those mp3 files.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    caves of bedrock
    Posts
    3,129

    Default

    well this is what my CD reads like

    [B]ALL RIGHTS OF THE OWNER IN THE RECORDED WORK ARE RESERVED. UNAUTHORISED COPYING, USAGE, PUBLISHING, PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, HIRING, RENTING, ADAPTING, SYNCHRONISATION & BROADCASTING OF THIS SOUND RECORDING PROHIBITED
    now owner in this case is the one who bought the CD i.e. me and my rights are RESERVED. so i guess that sums up it all...unauthorised copying is any copying done without taking prior permission from the music company (in this case sony entertainment limited) is illegal. now i don't know whether i m right or wrong but that is wat my brain tells me (which doesn't understand law pretty much :p)
    Latest Microsoft Security Updates.
    Last Updated:
    10th MARCH


    If you are a security freak: Use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (NT/2000/XP/2003)
    ======================
    icq : 203189004
    jabber : asklepios20@jabber.org
    =======================
    Linux user since: April 24, 2003 312478
    yabaa dabaa doo...
    Customized for 1024x768

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    here is a little more RIAA bashing:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10232
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. C

    You may own a car - but that doesn't give you the right to give the Ford Motor Company to anyone?
    You paid for the car, not company. there is no law that says you cannot take a part of your car, copy it (ex. seat cover) and give it to someone. If there was, the whole aftermarket industry would be getting sued!
    [B]
    I fear you folks are skewing semantics.
    A theatre owner has to pay to show a movie to an audience - that does not give them the right to burn copies of the film to give to the audience.
    [/quote]
    OK, but just because he paid for it, doesnt mean that he cannot show it for free. He wouldnt make money and go out of bussiness, but he wouldnt get sued by RIAA, as its his theatre, and he paid for the showing of the movie.

    To be honest, I really dont care as to what they are planning to do, as they will have as much success as every1 else. Pirates will find a way to screw them.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kane2g
    To be honest, I really dont care as to what they are planning to do, as they will have as much success as every1 else. Pirates will find a way to screw them.
    There you go
    You finally came right out and said what you meant to say all along.

    :devil win


    And as to showing the movie for free?
    I suppose you are correct. That still doesn't give the theatre owner the right to distribute copies.

    The point the RIAA is making, is the distribution.
    The reason a diamond shines so brightly is because it has many facets which reflect light.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    OK, I think I just didnt word it right. I think the examples that you given are bad/weak analogies.

    As for the theatre, he would get in trouble for giving away copies, I agree. but thats not really what p2p does, its just a medium to share your stuff, hence is more like the theatre owner not caring if everyone brings in a camera and records the movie. hes not distributing anything, but yet not doing anything to stop it either.

    NE way. I guess I just dont like the nazi-like tactics that RIAA is taking, and probably makes me want to go out and gets some more MP3s than before, just to screw with them.
    Maybe its just me, but I think a lot more people feel the same way. :2cents:

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •