RIAA: ripping your own cd's to mp3's = STEALING!

[Angry_Games]

It's just lawyers doing what they get paid to do.

 

Let them waste the RIAA's money trying to argue this claim in court. The judges will toss them out on their ear.

 

don't be so sure my friend...a lot of these nutjob judges can be convinced to side with nutjob RIAA jerks.

 

Just the fact that this is even being talked about is a very scary thing, because pretty soon we won't actually own anything.

 

You don't actually own your software. Take a few moments to look through the EULA and for about 96% of all software it says "you are basically just leasing this from us and we can revoke it at anytime". If you aren't sure, look at your windows EULA.

 

Sorta reminds me of the fiefdoms of old Europe...serfs and peasants owned nothing, barely even the clothes on their backs while "their" farms and homes and such were owned by dukes, princes, other assorted noble dummies.

 

Again, the fact that this is even being brought up in court makes me want to run kamikaze style into an RIAA office and start suicide-kicking every single butthole right square in the balls.

[General Septem]

Here's to the Ministry of Truth. :beer

 

[red930]

don't be so sure my friend...a lot of these nutjob judges can be convinced to side with nutjob RIAA jerks.

 

If I was representing a defendant against the RIAA, my first question to the judge and jury would be, "what's on your iPOD?", then rest my case!

 

I'm not a lawyer but drove by a Holiday Inn Express today.

[red930]

How does one "suicide kick" somebody?

[Angry_Games]

How does one "suicide kick" somebody?

 

its just like suicide bombing but instead of blowing yourself up, you go into a frenzy of relentless ball-kicking (until the victim's testicles look like tomato sauce in a bag) until your leg blows up/falls off/you die.

 

If I was representing a defendant against the RIAA, my first question to the judge and jury would be, "what's on your iPOD?", then rest my case!

 

but we all know that this is not reality. Just because a judge might have an iPod, it doesn't negate the arguments that the RIAA can present to prove that ripping music from purchased cd's is considered stealing.

 

You forget the DMCA and how zealously the RIAA and MPAA support it, and how hard they lobby jackass politicians who probably think an iPod is some 1960's horror movie title.

 

If you've seen the movie "Thank You For Smoking" then you know the truth is not who's facts are truly facts, but who can argue their side's "facts" the most convincingly.

 

Add this into gray areas of the law that both sides use as either loopholes or spike pits, two cups of crappy ambulance-chasing RIAA/MPAA lawyer, 3 slices of Republican judge (since Republicans are the ones who believe corporations need to be protected from the consumer as well as the government), and you get a crappy new way that the record/movie industry can force you to live under their draconian system (ie the law).

 

You don't need to be a lawyer to know some of the dumbest laws events have come into effect by mis-statements, outright lies, cooked facts, etc (hey...just look at the reasons we invaded Iraq, or look at the EPA as well as the USDA as well as the CPSC *Consumer Product Safety Commission* all losing incredible amounts of power because apparently citizens are actually dangerous to big business with all these claims of "e-coli" and "pollution" and "lead poisoning via chinese toys" (the fact that has been going on for years and only now someone got pissed enough to try and put a stop to it).

 

I mean, jeez. Consumers shouldn't be allowed to have any rights! If they have rights, it means the corporation usually has less rights...and we just can't have that because big business is much more important than our safety, our health, our individual liberties, etc.

 

Golly, how could we be so stupid as to think we, the consumers who PUT CORPORATIONS IN BUSINESS BY BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS/SERVICES, should have any protections from someone like the RIAA, MPAA, and other assorted shitbag agencies/companies that don't have the customer's interest as their own most important interest.

[red930]

Just because a judge might have an iPod, it doesn't negate the arguments that the RIAA can present to prove that ripping music from purchased cd's is considered stealing.

 

Someone been huffing too much wild-eyed crazy paint this week? lol

 

Sure, there's always the chance that the Ninth Circus Court will hear the arguments but the Supreme Court has been much more aligned with consumer rights over the past few sessions.

 

Outside of the Justice Souter providing the swing vote allowing local governments to take private property and give it to corporations link most justices have been very protective of us little guys against abuse from the DMCA and other "fair-use" issues in their writings and court decisions.

 

Read through the recent rulings and upcoming arguments at the court here...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html

 

Besides, if the court were to rule that ripping music to devices such as your computer or iPOD is illegal, that would put all the hardware manufacturers that facilitate such ripping in direct violation of the law.

 

This would allow the RIAA to seek damages from Apple, Sony and everyone else.

 

Cooler heads will prevail.

[Angry_Games]

but the Supreme Court has been much more aligned with consumer rights over the past few sessions.

uh

 

yeah

 

like imminent domain?

 

Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna?

 

Eldred vs Ashcroft?

 

etc etc

 

I suppose if you are Big Business then you should thank your lucky stars the Supreme Court is...how do you put it? Much more aligned with consumer rights?

 

guess I better go huff some more eh?

[red930]

My guess is that you didn't click the link I provided or chose to simply ignore the information.

 

Justice Souter was the swing vote in allowing local governments to take you're property and give it to another individual or private company.

 

Learn more about it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel

 

 

Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna? Are you kiddin' me?!?!

 

This guy borrows money from a check cashing place then claims the contract he signed is void to keep from paying the loan back.

 

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court simply let the State Court hold jurisdiction in the case because they were trying to use the arbitration clause to make the entire contract void.

 

Eldred vs Ashcroft? FAIL

 

The Supreme Court held that copyright holders could keep their works out of the public domain for life plus 70 years. The only people that complained were making or would make money from other peoples work.

 

FTA "A key factor in the CTEA’s passage was a 1993 European Union (EU) directive instructing EU members to establish a baseline copyright term of life plus 70 years and to deny this longer term to the works of any non-EU country whose laws did not secure the same extended term. By extending the baseline United States copyright term, Congress sought to ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts."

 

Sounds fair to me.

[Thasp]

No one abides by any of these laws anyway. They're total nonsense and defy technology.

 

Anything that can be stored digitally can be replicated millions of times for close to no cost, is worthless. You can't "own" waveforms, or other forms of binary data. Their entire business model is obsolete. They're not needed anymore.

[Angry_Games]

My guess is that you didn't click the link I provided or chose to simply ignore the information.

 

Justice Souter was the swing vote in allowing local governments to take you're property and give it to another individual or private company.

 

Learn more about it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel

 

 

Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna? Are you kiddin' me?!?!

 

This guy borrows money from a check cashing place then claims the contract he signed is void to keep from paying the loan back.

 

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court simply let the State Court hold jurisdiction in the case because they were trying to use the arbitration clause to make the entire contract void.

 

Eldred vs Ashcroft? FAIL

 

The Supreme Court held that copyright holders could keep their works out of the public domain for life plus 70 years. The only people that complained were making or would make money from other peoples work.

 

FTA "A key factor in the CTEA’s passage was a 1993 European Union (EU) directive instructing EU members to establish a baseline copyright term of life plus 70 years and to deny this longer term to the works of any non-EU country whose laws did not secure the same extended term. By extending the baseline United States copyright term, Congress sought to ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts."

 

Sounds fair to me.

 

my guess is that you didn't bother to read anything I wrote either, you just decided to discount it with your little explanation (or links to wikipedia...where information can be compromised by anyone, gee...look at what Fox News and your other Neo-Con buddies do with their own wiki pages...yeah, I'm gonna read those for sure uh huh).

 

COMPANY GOOD!!! CONSUMER EVIL!!!.

 

I will assume (correctly I'm sure based on your political views) that you also think ripping music from your legally purchased cd's is against the law and I (among others) should be prosecuted.

 

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. But here's a toast to you and your other shithouse crazy neo-republicans: I'm going to break the law as much as I possibly can by ripping every single song from every single cd I own (oh, wait, I already did it!).

 

It's nice to know that our rights and civil liberties are being eroded every year by these jackasses in Washington. It's also nice to know people like you stick up for them and keep voting for them.

 

CONSUMER BAD!!!! CORPORATION GOOD!!!

[MACarter02]

 

lol @ irony

[KimTjik]

Out of interest: what does that story indicate? Who has the authority to make house search? It sounds like your privacy isn't worth anything, and that a search warrant is granted on the most ridiculous grounds.

 

At least we got to know that Usama Bin Laden is true to his taliban heritage and doesn't rip degenerated western music, because if he would have RIAA would have found him by now. I wonder in such a case what crimes of Bin Laden's would have been priority number one: probably his mp3 collection, because that's a true crime against humanity! "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song", and after that Jennifer answered another crucial question: "However I'm not so sure about who owned the copyrights to the twin towers. That's probably a more complicated case of public vs. protected, so I think we should stay focused on what really matters".

 

According to RIAA's own figures they "represent" about 90 % of "all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States" (that's wacky or really sick: they must be bugging a lot of nasty sounds across the country). That will however for sure change, since musicians are the ones who get legally ripped off, at least the ones who are more concerned about their artistic qualities than selling themselves for whatever cost.