Comments on: Tech News: RIAA Says Ripping CDs Illegal.

By: macb

macb — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:18:27 +0000

I don’t think the RIAA did arrive at that. I think it is something that one of their lawyers said in the heat of a trial. Today I read where she is claiming she didn’t understand the question or something.

The RIAA and the lawyers working for them are either technologically stupid, or pretending to be. I’d vote the latter. They are trying to slow down the move to digital music on one hand while gearing up to make money on it with the other.

I seriously doubt that anyone converting their own CDs to MP3 files will get in trouble for that act alone. If they turn around and start distributing those files to a lot of people, well, that’s another story.

By: The Troubled Music Industry « That’s Elbert With An “E”

The Troubled Music Industry « That’s Elbert With An “E” — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:08:11 +0000

[...] The Troubled Music Industry Jared wrote a post about the RIAA’s assertation that ripping a CD that you own to your computer is illegal. I’m not sure how the RIAA arrived at that, but they’re trying to win a case in which it was something the accused did. Jared also makes this statement: CD sales are down again 20% this holiday season because kids, adults and everyone seems to be trading music. [...]

By: thatselbert

thatselbert — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:48:55 +0000

Jared, you wrote, “CD sales are down again 20% this holiday season because kids, adults and everyone seems to be trading music.” How are you certain about this? And, are you talking about CDs as in the discs themselves, or are you talking albums, which would include the discs and digital files?

By: macb

macb — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:01:10 +0000

The RIAA is an industry association (ie a bunch of lawyers) not judge, jury and executioner, so a pronouncement of any kind from them is no reason for everyone to change behaviors that are well within the generally accepted understanding of copyright laws.

I downloaded “Carol of the Bells” from Amazon.com as an mp3 (for 89 cents) after hearing it on WGMD (thanks Jared) one Saturday morning. If I instead had purchased a CD, it would come bundled with other “hits” from the same couple such as “Do you want to be my F***ing boyfriend?”. Individual file downloads allow music to be evaluated (valued) on a finer grained basis, encouraging artists to focus on their good stuff and not bother with “filler” cuts.

By the RIAA’s logic, since I purchased an MP3, would I be violating the law if I burned it to a CD for backup purposes, or to play in my car?

My guess is that the RIAA doesn’t see themselves as appliers of logic, they see themselves (correctly) as lawyers, trying to win lawsuits against whoever their clients choose to wage them.

What the RIAA misses is that there is a PR (Public Relations) component of what they do and they are blowing it completely. Those who love music should thank the RIAA for having their heads so totally and intentionally up their own asses. Keep up the good work!

Individual artists, and more importantly, record labels will distance themselves from such idiocy by supporting non-DRM downloads of music from Amazon, Apple and others. The RIAA will gradually diminish in importance, but don’t be surprised if their actions have an air of desperation about them in the process.

By: commonsense

commonsense — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:45:26 +0000

i download music that isnt worth buying. thats practically all of it. i buy CDs of artists whose albums i enjoy to support their efforts. thats usually after i have downloaded the entire album before its release date and listened to it on my computer, on my mp3 player and in my car.

By: amish electrician

amish electrician — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:02:28 +0000

Be careful Jared, I would hate to see you arrested for possession of ‘pirated’ Justin Timberlake music.

By: John B.

John B. — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:50:55 +0000

I am aware that the music industry is having problems but I think the latest RIAA ruling is going overboard. I have a collection of records (vinyl discs) going back over thirty years. I recorded them on to CDs for the sake of convenience in playing the songs and to preserve the original records. I converted them to mp3 which enables me to put up to 100 songs on one CD. I have a 60-disc CD changer (they don’t make them anymore) so that allows me to put my whole record collection into one player. If the RIAA is able to enforce their ruling, I would have to destroy all the CDs and dig the record player out each time I want to listen to the music.

I also purchase recorded music through Amazon.com or iTunes. I do not download pirated music. I have approximately 140 CDs, 99% of which are songs dating way back to before the birth of the CD. I would value those CDs to be in the region of $1700. And now they tell me I can’t rip them to mp3 for convenient playing?

I will not sell the original discs so I don’t see how I am hurting the recording artists or anyone else. Let’s face it, mp3 discs are not sold commercially, are they? So we have no option but to purchase our music and convert it for convenience sake. It also follows that if I get caught with any mp3 discs, I could be prosecuted for having ripped them. The RIAA is going to cause many thousands of people to become outlaws or music pirates.

The problem stems from piracy which is downright illegal. It is the thieves who steal the copyrighted work who are causing the problems. Ripping has long been known about but nothing said of it. And the pirates are not selling mp3 discs! They are trading the music over their computers or they are selling them in the regular CDA form (normal CDs).

If we really want to split technical hairs, then it would be wrong for me to puchase legal mp3 music and download it to an iPod, then play it through speakers instead of headphones so that whole family or others can hear it. Would that not be considered public broadcasting without a license? How far can this nonsense be pushed?

The RIAA needs to make an allowance for personal mp3 use, and not lump us in with the pirates. Otherwise we need some politicians who will have the backbone to stand up to the RIAA and make it legal to rip songs to mp3 for personal use.

By: Nancy Cleveland

Nancy Cleveland — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:20:50 +0000

I hear that, Jared…my other half bought me and iTouch a few months ago and, much as I appreciated it, we returned it. I’m not so much a techie slouch but, as you say…iTunes was something else to work with and, with everything else I have on various playlists didn’t seem worth the hassle. As it is, I just found my favourite site for music purchases is going to be gone by the end of March…real bummer for now I have to burn CD’s if I want to ensure keeping all the music I’ve bought. We have a couple or so Sandisks so maybe I can just upload it to them. If I burn the CDs the best…and least expensive would be to burn it ATRAC but then I don’t have anything that will play ATRAC except my portable player. It’s a game of “Gotcha…coming and going”! Thanks for the info on the royalties gig…see, I wouldn’t mind at all if all the sites did it and even charged a little more per cut. I’d still get the music I wanted without having stuff I didn’t.

By: Jared Morris

Jared Morris — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:57:27 +0000

Nancy, Bands can get their music on iTunes and be paid a percentage of what sells. Typically, I’ve heard, they get less royalties for a downloaded copy than a physical CD though. At least that’s what “Weird Al”s deal is. I read it in an interview once. I think iTunes is great for that sort of thing, but it’s also not the easiest to use for the typical computer user unless you want iTunes to dictate every move you make via mp3.

By: Nancy Cleveland

Nancy Cleveland — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:05:34 +0000

Pity, that. In the days of albums I’d buy mine, even just to get one cut from it available nowhere else, tape what I wanted for my own pleasure and save the album. Consequently, over the years have built a substantial music library. Like you, Jared, I’ve never once bought any music off the web I didn’t pay for….another good collection which I use to make my own compilation CD’s. But having paid for every one of them…and technology providing the means for me to copy them for my own use…why shouldn’t I burn a CD for home, one for the car or even one to share with friends on occasion? What is the difference between that and buying a book…another vice of mine…and lending it or giving it to someone else? Cutting it even finer, what is the difference between paying for a disc or book then giving it to someone as a gift? I don’t…but I could have read or listened or taped before giving. So why can’t bands or music producers strike a deal with the legit web sites selling albums or single tracks to pay royalties to the bands each time one is bought and downloaded? Of course maybe they do and I am just ignorant of that fact. At around a buck a cut, I’m sure a few pennies royalty each time it wouldn’t be a hardship for napster, CONNECT, etc. Nor should the bands rebel since royalties are reputed not to be very much, anyway.