RIAA et al. says CD ripping, backups not fair use

[jayfish]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

Such are the lengths they will go through in order to keep the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA intact. But supporting the status quo isn't in their interest. No, the idea is to embrace and extend. To wit, the joint reply also argues that making backups of your CDs is also not fair use.

The provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights. (emphasis added)

As you can see, the argument is hinged partially on the cost of replacements. Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"

Their greed knows no bounds.

Jay

[longship]

1. Contrary to case law.

See the Supreme Court Betamax case:

Sony v Universal Studios

[elperromagico]

2. Well, whatever.

How are sales these days?

[benburch]

3. When you buy a blank audio CD-R, you pay a royalty to RIAA!

So how can it not be fair use when you have already PAID for it?

[Heddi]

5. I'm sure they'd say

that when you buy a blank CD-R, you're just buying the CD-R and it's blankness. You have a license for a blank CD, not a license for a blank CD that you then burn music or other files onto......:shrug:

[benburch]

14. They might... However...

That tax was put into place by congress specifically for the relief of the RIAA against the possible future use of CD-R media for copying music. At the time it was really quite theoretical as media were more expensive than a retail CD.

Not that this does not include DATA CD-R media. Look in the store. Audio CD-Rs, the only ones a recording audio deck will consent to use, are more expensive than data CD-Rs and this is exactly why.

Now, if you copy using your computer and with Data CD-Rs, then you are not paying the tax, so it behooves you to buy the Audio CD-Rs for this purpose.

[jayfish]

24. Are The Audio Disc's More Expensive To Produce?

I thought I read somewhere that the difference was the reflective backing that they used to bounce the laser back to the reader. Audio disks require a chrome stuff while data disks can use whatever. Does the chrome stuff actually cost more, seeing that it is used in the production of blank disks as well as finished audio disks? Seems like economies of scale would kick in and the silvery stuff would actually be cheaper.

Jay

[benburch]

31. Nope. They are no different at all.

They are exactly the same as the data disks except for the pre-written code section that says they are audio disks.

The price difference is entirely the RIAA tax.

[Billy Burnett]

15. The royalty fee is for audio only blank CDs, not data CDs.

I know, I know.

You can burn audio to data CDs, but there is a whole class of consumer CD audio recorders that burn only to audio CDs.

[benburch]

20. Right!

And so if you buy those Audio CD-Rs for copying audio (I do) you are paying for the privilege and they need to STFU.

And yes, you can use the Audio CD-Rs in a computer drive just as easily as a Data CD-R.

[Horse with no Name]

4. I am trying to remember, honestly I am

and I wish someone would correct me if I am wrong.
The very first CD that I saw was circa 1984.
My neighbor had purchased a CD player. I distinctly remember him giving me the spiel that was given him when he purchased it.
He said that CD's would last a lifetime, unlike records. They would resist scratching and breaking.
I remember the first CD's being thicker.
Is that how they were marketed at the beginning?
I have one of the first DVD players that were out. It is a Sony. Excellent machine. However, the least little scratch or smudge, it kicks it back to the front. I can play the same DVD on one of my cheaper DVD players and it goes by without a problem. I guess the Sony is more sensitive.:shrug:

[jayfish]

10. That's Exactly The Way They Were Marketed.

My buddy got the first one I had ever seen (outside of a store or magazine)as a HS graduation present in 1987. Another thing they claimed was, because the media was solid-state, prices would eventually fall below those of cassette tapes.


Pure BS,


Jay

[elperromagico]

25. I think you're right. Those older CDs did seem thicker.

[Occulus]

26. They were.

And I think they were made with a different type of plastic.

I work for USPS, and I very distinctly remember, when I first started working in my plant, CDs shattering on a regular basis inside our machines. They had to be able to bend to make it through the machines, and those CDs, at that time, were NOT very flexible.

Things have changed; we regularly run CDs and DVDs through the machines without any problems.

[fujiyama]

6. The RIAA

can go fuck itself.

I'm disappointed that the Democratic party is so close to this vile organization. Oh well, they contribute $$$.

The RIAA is so stupid and they have a freakin luddite mentality. They try to block every piece of technology they fear can be used for illegal purposes. They tried to block the sale of the Rio. If they had won, we wouldn't have iPods.

But that's how studio execs are. They can't change the business model and ADAPT to changing technology. If they would stop fighting technology and actually embrace it, they could make money off of it.

But that's too hard for these idiots to figure out.

[mattclearing]

18. Exactly right.

Their failure to adapt to changing market conditions is their problem, not ours.

[lakeguy]

7. i stopped buying CDs in stores after they started suing people

only buy direct from the musician now.

[tenshi816]

8. I wonder when they're going to go after

people selling their used CDs on eBay - I don't mean copies of CDs, but people selling original CDs they purchased and don't want anymore. How long will it be before the RIAA wants to put a stop to that because they're not making a profit on the resale? How long before they go after secondhand music shops?

[Occulus]

27. They already DO- or, at least- DID want exactly that.

I can't remember the name of the article- I think I saw it on /.- but the gist of it was, the RIAA wanted legislation that would have affected all RESALES.

Yup. They wanted to even extend it to garage sales.

If they had had their way, selling off your old CDs at a garage sale would have violated the DMCA!!

It didn't fly, as far as I know.

[MadHound]

9. This is simply not true

There are many CDs out there that one simply can't replace anymore. The band has long since disbanded, the artist is now an accountant, etc. They simply can't be found anymore. This is especially true when one gets outside of mainstream music. Bluegrass, blues, independent artists, all of these people and more print only limited runs of their recordings, and once those are gone, you're SOL.

And then there is vinyl and cassettes. There are some albums that simply will never, ever be released on a CD. What, we're supposed to grind the vinyl down until it is a complete loss? I think not.

This is just more greed and hunger for absolute control by the RIAA. Fuck 'em.

[benburch]

12. Amen!

I have a number of CDs that fall into that category.

BTW, here is a gadget for ripping cassettes! LINK

[leeroysphitz]

11. RIP everything you can...

Intellectual property is theft.

[msongs]

13. thanks for permission to perform identity theft against you and steal

all your money and ruin your credit :-) that darn intellectual property in your financial records is such a nuisance.
oh by the way, if I break into your residence and steal your computer, you won't call the police will you? after all,
just because you claim it is yours doesn't mean it is yours.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[leeroysphitz]

23. If I worked for Sony music you would have permission

to do all those things. :)

[Occulus]

29. Oh PLEASE

you have never ever lost a single posession due to copyright infingement* (not "theft" as some will call it) and you can't claim that a person "stealing"- excuse me, COPYING your song would ever have actually bought it in the first place.

Quit your whining.

By the way, I copyLEFT everything I create. I CAN claim purity in this; everything that comes out of my mind is fair game for all comers, at no fee. PERIOD.

Why?

Because *I* don't believe in "intellectual property", and I WILL NOT be greedy and claim I deserve money for something that's not at all necessary to anyone else's life.

I even give away fragments of works in progress, because I am a passionate believer in the inherent PUBLIC value of derivitave works- which purveyors of the "intellectual property" lie will claim they are entitled to compensation for.

Not in MY world, and not if I can help it. Sorry.

Today's copyright laws are a perversion of what they were originally supposed to be.

*if someone copies your file, or song, or video, guess what? YOU STILL HAVE IT. IUt's not like they deleted it from YOU, and it's not like you can't ever sell it to someone willing to pay.

Here's a thought: stay away from the RIAA and you'll have LOTS lesds trouble with "illegal" copying than you ever would otherwise. Be your own agent.

Disclaimer: I have never made a dime of profit from any of my creations because I am not arrogant enough to presume I deserve it.

[gatorboy]

16. Eh...I'm an iTunes guy, anyway.

10 bucks an album, plus you can make as many copies as you like if it becomes scratched (And believe me, mine do..)

[mattclearing]

17. The traditional music industry is finished.

And rightfully so. Burn in Hell, RIAA.

[BiggJawn]

19. "...replacements are readily available at affordable prices..."

Well, Mr. RIAA, it may seem like it's only a quarter to YOU, but it's $25 to me. Another rich Mo-Fo out of touch with Reality.

Or are they trying to bullshit me into thinking that I can send in a scratched CD and get a royalty-free replacement for 50 cents?

S'Yeah, and that's the turnip wagon I just fell off of going round the bend....

[benburch]

21. If they would institute such a policy...

it would do their case wonders!

[warrens]

22. How about free replacement for life?

Just bring your damaged CD in to your local store and they have to give you a new one. This is such bullshit. Half the CDs I own are out of print or very difficult to find, even online.

[Occulus]

30. Get a resurfacer.

I have one, a handheld little job, and it does a pretty good job filling in the scratches and getting rid of surface abnormalities. You can also take badly scratched CDs, DVDs, and data CDs to any chain video store (HOllywood Video or Blockbuster come to mind) and they should be able to grind the scratches away for you.

[jayfish]

32. I Have One But,...

I'm always a bit leary about using it. It works great for audio CDs, but I have ruined a few DVDs, CD-ROMs and game discs with it. One of them (related to another thread)being Halo2. :mad:

Jay

[KyuzoGator]

28. They can "say" whatever they want.

Settled intellectual property law is what it is.