Fair Use

[Cowboy X]

RIAA " Down with the ipod and mixed CDs " ...................... paraphrasing of course :

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php

 

[ByteMe]

RIAA can kiss my behind. They are close approaching microsoft with things I hate.

 

[Cowboy X]

For me they surpassed MS a long time ago .

 

[PARANOiA]

RIAA can kiss my behind. They are close approaching microsoft with things I hate.

Nothing MS has done goes anywhere near what the RIAA are doing to infringe on consumer rights.

If anything, MS is trying to catch up with DRMing computers until I have to get permission to Start -> Run -> Notepad

 

[Sxotty]

This is a really, amazingly stupid move by the RIAA if it is true.

Perhaps it is being taken out of context I can only hope so.

I actually do not download music illegaly b/c I think the artists deserve to be paid even if the label is taking most of it, but this is a foolish idea. If I own the CD then I can listen to the music in any form that I transfer it to.

 

[Cowboy X]

I doubt that it was taken out of context , it is like the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD battle , the labels want the right to arbitrarily choose what you can and cannot make personal backups of . This would ultimately result in very few titles being backup friendly or even allowing you to change their form or format for other music players .

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Yes, they keep telling us we don't own the media just the licence to the music, but when we want to use the things we buys in a media independent way, they tell us we're not licenced to do that and have to buy another copy.

I like this quote from CDFreaks:

We must never forget the statement by Jack Valenti, who was the former head of the Motion Picture Association of America. He had suggested in November of 2003 that consumers have no legitimate need for backups. He told The Associated Press, "If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."

What do you do if the music you want is out of print? You just lose all the content you've legitimately paid for and have a licence for, regardless of the fact the cartels tell us it's not about the media.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

This is a really, amazingly stupid move by the RIAA if it is true.

Perhaps it is being taken out of context I can only hope so.

It is true. You might think it's fair use, but the cartels want to erode fair use. You might think it's reasonable to have a CD in the house, copy one for the car and rip a copy to your ipod, but the cartels say that it isn't. It's a "privalige" you currently enjoy for free that they want to "monetize". As soon as they can get laws that force hardware DRM into place to stop you doing this because it not fair use and against the licencing terms of the music you buy, they will stop you doing it, and tell you to buy more copies.

Need a CD for the house, buy it. Need one for the car, buy another copy. Need one for the kids, buy another copy. Need one for the Ipod, buy it again from Itunes. Want to lend your own, store bought CD to your friend, not allowed to, a breach of your licencing terms and soon (if the cartels have their way) breaking laws and hampered by DRM.

This is not scaremongering, this is what the cartels really do want, because the only thing that's important to them is raping the customer for as much money as they can.

The stupid thing is that the cartels will keep blaming piracy as they spiral down even as people get out of music as a hobby because of all these "great" innovations that make listening to music a frustrating and expensive exercise that becomes less enjoyable every time you have to deal with cartel enacted laws and hardware.

 

[_xxx_]

Fair abuse.

 

[nutball]

I'm waiting for the first case of the RIAA taking legal action against artists who propagate their own work via the Internet without DRM, on the grounds that it "encourages piracy and a culture of using without paying". Think I'm paranoid? We'll see.

 

[Druga Runda]

I'm waiting for the first case of the RIAA taking legal action against artists who propagate their own work via the Internet without DRM, on the grounds that it "encourages piracy and a culture of using without paying". Think I'm paranoid? We'll see.

I sadly agree

 

[Mariner]

And, of course, the suits of the RIAA care less about music than practically anyone else. For them it's all about making money as can be seen with all the crappy manufactured boyband/girlband stuff which is released with proper groups/artists being ignored.

 

[_xxx_]

And, of course, the suits of the RIAA care less about music than practically anyone else. For them it's all about making money as can be seen with all the crappy manufactured boyband/girlband stuff which is released with proper groups/artists being ignored.

That's becuase lots of people actually buy that crap...

 

[Mariner]

That's becuase lots of people actually buy that crap...

...because that's all you hear on Commercial radio and through the media! I'm sure whoever selects the playlists for radio stations must get plenty of bribes from various record companies to include some stuff.

Things may be changing thanks to the internet though. Here in the UK a group called the Arctic Monkeys are the big new thing and they are a bit different to most of the stuff out these days. They didn't start with a record deal but built up a fan base on the internet before getting signed to an independent record label. Admittedly the media then started to hype them and they've recently had a record selling single (360,000 copies in the first week in the UK alone!) but at least it's not just the mass-produced crap we've come to expect.

The only problem I can see is that I'd bet the big record companies will see this success and will try to manufacture bands to perform in a similar way! Viral marketing here we come!

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

...because that's all you hear on Commercial radio and through the media! I'm sure whoever selects the playlists for radio stations must get plenty of bribes from various record companies to include some stuff.

Several of the majors have admitted to and been fined millions for payola to the radio stations, even threatening to withdraw money if independent acts are played.

 

[_xxx_]

The only problem I can see is that I'd bet the big record companies will see this success and will try to manufacture bands to perform in a similar way!

Well, don't they always do that? Perfectly normal, unfortunately.

 

[Druga Runda]

Arctic Monkeys are the big new thing and they are a bit different to most of the stuff out these days. They didn't start with a record deal but built up a fan base on the internet before getting signed to an independent record label. Admittedly the media then started to hype them and they've recently had a record selling single (360,000 copies in the first week in the UK alone!) but at least it's not just the mass-produced crap we've come to expect.

Arctic Monkeys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4660394.stm

just to show the sheer size of success

Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not was released on 23 January and has sold more than 360,000 copies.
The Sheffield band's album is currently outselling the rest of the top 20 album chart combined.

and Jarvis :thumbup:

Pulp singer Jarvis Cocker, who is also from Sheffield, told the BBC the Arctic Monkeys' success was a lesson for the music industry.
"I think it's very important because they've done it without trying," he said.
"The only reason people have got into it [the music] is because they've listened to it and they like it, so it's something real.
"I guess all the music industry will probably think 'how can we emulate that or what can we do?'
"I think there's nothing they can do about it because it's something that has happened naturally, there's no way to apply spin doctorism to it."

perhaps the industry will copy the success by letting the music to be freely shared and than release the record afterwards :yeahright:

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It's been said before by other artists who have spoken out against the RIAA - "if you want people to buy your music, first they have to hear it". Commercial radio is virtually a fully owned subsidiary of the media cartels, so the only place to hear new music is from your friends - and nowadays that includes your friends and other like minded individuals from the internet.

 

[Sxotty]

Well I understand the fear associated with digital information. Basically there is no degredation so it can be copied and you get perfect results. As I said I don't pirate music, but I also don't buy it unless I can hear it first on the band's website or something.

This is definitely a step to far by the music industry though. The backlash against them could be huge. And wait you can copy mp3's you buy off itunes to CDs right? That is kinda silly if you cannot go the other way.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

And wait you can copy mp3's you buy off itunes to CDs right? That is kinda silly if you cannot go the other way.

IIRC, no you can't (legally). When you buy music from Itunes, it is licenced for your Ipod only. You can't copy it to another format. The RIAA are saying that you can't even give it away with your Ipod when you sell it on, even if you no longer have a copy of the music. Yet if your Ipod was stolen they would tell you that you have to buy a new version of that same track, as if you had got a CD stolen.

They just want to have their cake and eat it because they are greedy sons-of-bitches, and their greed is killing the industry they claim to be protecting.