Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Angry_Games

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

Recommended Posts

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

 

Well, I suppose the fact that THE LAW supports RIAA's argument wouldn't have anything to do with those judges being persuaded by RIAA?

 

Ars technica needs to enroll a few of its editors/bloggers into law school, they're almost as bad as DailyTech at routinely botching basic legal matters. Almost as bad as DailyTech, but not quite.

 

The fact is, copyright law (and the U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 8) plainly state that the copyright owner has EXCLUSIVE rights over their works. Period. Without expressed written permission, or an exemption granted by statute such as fair use, you can't legally copy or reproduce those works, no matter how much you paid for the little shiny disc its on. I've purchased a lot of CDs in my life and have yet to find this such permission expressly granted on the labeling somewhere.

 

Its not what RIAA thinks or says or wants - ITS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

 

So are judges supposed to ignore the law or uphold the law? Lemme guess, when the law is to your personal liking, judges are supposed to uphold it, but when you personally don't like the law, judges are supposed to ignore it...does that about sum it up?

 

You aren't, by chance, the same person who ranted on about how Wal-Mart and Best Buy are somehow to blame because Sony neglected to post a modem driver on its website, are you? That would explain much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical conclusion of your post tcsenter is that all countries are slaves to outdated definitions. The U.S. Constitution (by the way: which part of 1:8 do you have in mind), which finally was ratified more than 200 years ago, consists of guiding fundamental principles, a framework for laws. Hence a principle which express fundamental human values shouldn't be changed, but laws might be changed if becoming irrelevant or obsolete. Unfortunately our society tend to focus solely on laws, while not grasping the principles behind them, hence the race in finding loopholes.

 

"THE LAW supports RIAA's argument" put some words on the pedestal of infallible deities. The law of any country isn't perfect, it's nothing more than an expression of limited human understanding at a specific time. A society has to use all its thinking faculties and be humble enough to understand when something is outdated and in need of revision.

 

Furthermore the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do: the whole patent system is outdated and does limit development of inventions, and might even fatally damage U.S. progress in the future. It's ridiculous to have copyright laws that actually make it profitable to run companies based on one business idea: manhunt inventions with "poor" copyright protection and destroy them. Do you want new firms with bright ideas to establish themselves in the U.S.? If yes, you need to make the environment more invention-friendly, making it possible to take risks without using 90 % of the resources to watch your back.

 

The music industry is just one example of a bigger problem. And if you think so well of RIAA: why do they meddle in the affairs of other countries? What law or constitution give them such rights? If it's all about laws, why have the history seen so many mistreated musicians and artists? Does the constitution encourage fraud? Why do more and more musicians act against RIAA?

 

Follow the money and realize who's interest they serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

 

The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I suppose the fact that THE LAW supports RIAA's argument wouldn't have anything to do with those judges being persuaded by RIAA?

 

Just because the law says something doesn't make it right. Additionally, not everything that is wrong can rightly be protected by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fact remains that most copyright holders won't get a single penny from those cases.

The RIAA gets it all.

And on top of that the RIAA is a private company so it's got nothing to do with law but with making . loads of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tcsenter

 

The RIAA collects royalty monies on blank cassette tape and CD-R media(only the 700MB variant) because they acknowledge that they are used for recording copyright material.

 

Regardless of what the RIAA says and does in a legal motion, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the "fair use doctrine" which makes your entire argument irrelevant at best.

 

Sounds like someone needs to do a little research before they post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!

 

Good Lord man!!!

 

Where did I go wrong in my response?

 

All those words and not a single valid point made.

 

You gave examples of people trying to game the system in response to my finely crafted response to your original argument.

 

Do you really believe that the only truth is the truth you speak? That only your sources of information are factual and true?

 

I simply use wiki as a public access to backup my sources of information. Not everyone has access to LexisNexis for research.

http://global.lexisnexis.com/us

 

BTW Since the creation of the article on the "Lost Liberty Hotel", was voted on and issued a permanent place in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VFD/LLH

 

For an enlightened individual, you sure resort to name calling awfully quickly.

 

Did you just assume that my wiki link was a joke or something because it pointed out that one of the most liberal(enlightened) judges on the Supreme Court voted to take property away from an individual to give it to another individual or god forbid a soulless corporation?!?!

 

Maybe if you had paid attention, you would have noticed that it was the more conservative judges that voted to preserve the rights of the individual in the Imminent Domain case.

 

Since you assumed incorrectly, I'll set the record straight.

 

I have ripped every single CD I own. I've also recorded every piece of vinyl from my collection. I have original TV programming on VHS even though I don't have a VHS player hooked up anymore.

 

You might want to take a break from the name calling and only use it when it will actually intimidate your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

 

The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

 

Source

 

Did anybody actually read this .? The whole thing is pointless since the RIAA DID NOT imply that ripping your own CDs is illegal, sharing them is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anybody actually read this .? The whole thing is pointless since the RIAA DID NOT imply that ripping your own CDs is illegal, sharing them is.

 

 

Sounds like someone is finally growing a pair....

 

Kinda hard to keep up with all this stuff especially the political side of things....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just getting fed up with people feeding into this misinformation. I woke up kinda ban-happy too, so ya'll better be on your toes, I ain't in the mood to put up with no bull crap ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×