IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
RIAA now says ripping is illegal
wisodev
post Feb 16 2006, 14:16
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 123
Joined: 31-January 06
Member No.: 27439



http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29733

amazing ;-(


--------------------
http://code.google.com/p/wavtoac3encoder/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tgoose
post Feb 16 2006, 14:24
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 407
Joined: 12-April 05
Member No.: 21399



It's always been illegal here. The US is one of the luckier countries, in that respect.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kwanbis
post Feb 16 2006, 14:46
Post #3





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2362
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425



here where? i can do whatever i want with the music i pay the right to listen to. I didn't pay for a CD, i paid for the right to listen to the album. Didn't i?

This post has been edited by kwanbis: Feb 16 2006, 14:48


--------------------
MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 16 2006, 15:16
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



The UK. Check this thread.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wisodev
post Feb 16 2006, 16:02
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 123
Joined: 31-January 06
Member No.: 27439



wow!

in my country I can rip music from my original cd\'s, encode ripped music to whatever I want and even share it with my friends, this is completely legal


--------------------
http://code.google.com/p/wavtoac3encoder/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 16 2006, 16:15
Post #6





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



I'm not up on the laws of other countries - in fact I'm not up on the laws of my own country - but I find the concept of it being legal to openly distribute ripped music quite strange.

In fact, I find it hard to believe. I'm sure all distribution should result in a payment to the record label. Shouldn't it?

Which country are we talking about?

This is a topic that always confused me, including the "dodgy" Asian copies of Disney films you see on eBay. I know someone who has a workmate who's dog gets cheap DVDs from their relative in Malaysia. What's that all about? How can they press and distribute Disney DVDs so cheaply? Is that legal, or just unprosecutable?


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
legg
post Feb 16 2006, 17:15
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 175
Joined: 5-March 05
From: Morelia, Mexico
Member No.: 20386



AFAIK, over here it is legal to distribute the music as long as you are not making money off it. It might have changed by now, but I do own several CDs that read (most straightforward translation):

"The partial or total reproduction of this material with lucrative means is forbidden".


--------------------
Home page: http://lc.fie.umich.mx/~legg/indexen.php
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andavari
post Feb 16 2006, 22:25
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 935
Joined: 3-June 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2204



The RIAA could go under one thread which begins with "Money hunger idiots creating new laws". I've never known of any other organization that creates so many damned laws all on their own.


--------------------
Complexity of incoherent design.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brink
post Feb 16 2006, 22:52
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 10-September 04
From: Brazil
Member No.: 16894



I just can't believe such a thing. They just keep chasing people who REALLY support their industry - buying an album and ripping it instead of downloading it in p2p networks. Yes, I know that you need just one person to rip and distribute to millions o people a simple cd on the internet - but for that guy you punish all the others.

This post has been edited by Brink: Feb 16 2006, 22:54


--------------------
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Otto42
post Feb 17 2006, 00:33
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1075
Joined: 15-October 03
From: Memphis, TN
Member No.: 9323



The RIAA can say anything it wants. That doesn't make it true.


--------------------
http://ottodestruct.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zima
post Feb 18 2006, 12:15
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 3-July 03
From: Pomerania
Member No.: 7541



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 16 2006, 04:15 PM)
I'm not up on the laws of other countries - in fact I'm not up on the laws of my own country - but I find the concept of it being legal to openly distribute ripped music quite strange.

In fact, I find it hard to believe.  I'm sure all distribution should result in a payment to the record label.  Shouldn't it?

Which country are we talking about?
...

Well, seems like MPAA is doing their job of brainwashing quite well wink.gif

Seriously, nothing strange, just a law different from yours. (Poland - you can legally share music with family (not only the closests) and close friends)


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/zima
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 18 2006, 13:46
Post #12





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (zima @ Feb 18 2006, 11:15 AM)
Poland - you can legally share music with family (not only the closests) and close friends
Define "close friend". blink.gif

Is this geographically, spiritually, or simply conveniently?

QUOTE (zima @ Feb 18 2006, 11:15 AM)
Well, seems like MPAA is doing their job of brainwashing quite well wink.gif
Maybe I have been brainwashed, but I really don't think it is unfair to expect an artist to receive payment for producing a piece of art. If you were more friendly Coldplay may only sell one album in Poland, yet the whole country could be listening to it. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Feb 18 2006, 13:52


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zima
post Feb 18 2006, 13:52
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 3-July 03
From: Pomerania
Member No.: 7541



In practise it means that it won't work for people who you know only over Internet, etc.


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/zima
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Oge_user
post Feb 18 2006, 14:03
Post #14


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 3123



A consumer must have the right to use a good he bought in the manner he prefers. This is an undeniable right

This post has been edited by Oge_user: Feb 18 2006, 14:04


--------------------
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josef K.
post Feb 18 2006, 14:09
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 111
Joined: 25-November 04
From: village
Member No.: 18344



Well, assume that I want to act lawfully. Now: I purchase CD. I find that I love it and I want to rip it into my DAP. What I'm supposed to do? Buy another one, rip it and throw it up? Or it is impossible to have "legal" music in your DAP (if you don't buy it on iTunes)?
Fortunately this is just theoretical for me because AFAIK here (Czech republic) it is still legal to rip (or backup) music which you purchase for your private need.


--------------------
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 18 2006, 14:29
Post #16





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Oge_user @ Feb 18 2006, 01:03 PM)
A consumer must have the right to use a good he bought in the manner he prefers. This is an undeniable right
So if I buy a gun I can shoot anything I want to?

I dunno, I guess I must be brainwashed as I just can't see it. sad.gif


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zima
post Feb 18 2006, 14:38
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 3-July 03
From: Pomerania
Member No.: 7541



I should also add that _really_ in practise you can share with anybody...nobody gives a damn about p2p sharing of music here. (only thing that is somewhat/sometimes (depending what entity you are - basically only companies need to be legal) enforced is software piracy)

(this is obviously out of legal realm...but nobody enforces the law)

This post has been edited by zima: Feb 18 2006, 14:55


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/zima
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mtm
post Feb 18 2006, 20:31
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 6-November 01
Member No.: 419



QUOTE (zima @ Feb 18 2006, 03:38 PM)
(this is obviously out of legal realm...but nobody enforces the law)
*

IMO, that's a bit of an overstatement. They do try to.

And I'd rather see them fighting organised crime, like ceratin groups profiting from the sells of pirated music/movies, than punishing individual users downloading and sharing things for free, which is what the police have been doing for some time.

(Sorry for getting off topic. Over & out.)


--------------------
Marius the Mad
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Oge_user
post Feb 18 2006, 23:07
Post #19


A/V Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20-August 02
Member No.: 3123



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 18 2006, 01:29 PM)
QUOTE (Oge_user @ Feb 18 2006, 01:03 PM)
A consumer must have the right to use a good he bought in the manner he prefers. This is an undeniable right
So if I buy a gun I can shoot anything I want to?

I dunno, I guess I must be brainwashed as I just can't see it. sad.gif
*



It's a different thing. Obviously an Audio CD is not a gun (or a knife) and the "rip" is referred as a private copy to your PC/device. I suppose the CD is not protected, so you will not circumvent any copy protection scheme, too.


--------------------
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tgoose
post Feb 19 2006, 02:41
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 407
Joined: 12-April 05
Member No.: 21399



QUOTE (Oge_user @ Feb 18 2006, 02:03 PM)
A consumer must have the right to use a good he bought in the manner he prefers. This is an undeniable right
*

A consumer has the right to use a good he bought according to the laws governing it. You know that thing that's written round the edge of most CDs? That is real, you know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 19 2006, 10:20
Post #21





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Oge_user @ Feb 18 2006, 10:07 PM)
It's a different thing. Obviously an Audio CD is not a gun (or a knife) and the "rip" is referred as a private copy to your PC/device. I suppose the CD is not protected, so you will not circumvent any copy protection scheme, too.
Yeah, don't get me wrong; I'm not an RIAA fan. I think that consumers should be legally allowed to rip a CD that they own into any format they want - for their personal use.

What I don't understand is the concept that someone who does not own the CD can legally own a rip from that CD (whether it be a CD-R, an MP3, etc.).


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Feb 19 2006, 14:26
Post #22





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 19 2006, 10:20 AM)
What I don't understand is the concept that someone who does not own the CD can  legally own a rip from that CD (whether it be a CD-R, an MP3, etc.).
*

In France citizens are allowed to get a copy of something they don't have (at least when the source is legal: from a library for example). But one important conditions must be respected:
- the copy is for personal usage only (you can't lend it, sell it, distribute it...).
Making a copy is not a right, but an exception of the right (i.e. copy is always prohibited, excepted for personal usage or few other cases like caricature).

It may appear as strange that people can burn a CD or a DVD even when they didn't pay anything for it. But the reason is simple: the jurudic texts are old. When they were written, a personal copy meant: going into a library, opening a book, then opening a copybook, a pencil and spending three intensive days for copying what you want. It was very fastidious... and no one expected from this exception of the right to cause any harm to the industry.
Then comes modern technique of reproduction, potentially more harmful but law didn't change. To compensate possible loss, several tax appeared: on cassette, VHS, photocopy... Copying was still legal for personal usage.
Now with bit-to-bit reproduction techniques, the whole concept of copy have changed. Nowadays few things differenciate a copy from the original. Now that industry is selling files without support, nothing can differenciate a copy from the original. That's one reason explaining that french law is changing (another one is to respect a european obligation). But apparently, the [exception of the] right to copy will be maintained, even if you don't own or pay for the original. Will be forbidden:
- breaking or circumventing DRM techniques (copying a RedBook CD won't therefore be illegal)
- downloading from P2P (it's already considered as illegal in France but the current laws aren't precise and some people were already acquitted whereas other were condamn for the same reasons... well, it's called justice rolleyes.gif The future law is intended to be very clear on the P2P subject).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NeoRenegade
post Feb 19 2006, 15:24
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 29-November 01
Member No.: 563



QUOTE (wisodev @ Feb 16 2006, 08:16 AM)
It's funny, because the RIAA homepage still says that it's alright to rip your CD's.

This post has been edited by NeoRenegade: Feb 19 2006, 15:24
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrueAudio
post Feb 21 2006, 01:41
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 9-December 05
Member No.: 26303



Synthetic Soul: Ill quote your above comments from this thread to illustrate a few things.

"I'm not up on the laws of other countries - in fact I'm not up on the laws of my own country - but I find the concept of it being legal to openly distribute ripped music quite strange.

In fact, I find it hard to believe. I'm sure all distribution should result in a payment to the record label. Shouldn't it?"

*my response*: When you have a plumber come and fix your toilet, does he get paid on a per flush basis for the rest of his life, or does he only get paid for the original job (or performance)? Or if someone gets a car fixed by a mechanic, does the mechanic get paid every time you start your car, or did he get paid one time only for the parts and labor he performed?


"Which country are we talking about?

This is a topic that always confused me, including the "dodgy" Asian copies of Disney films you see on eBay. I know someone who has a workmate who's dog gets cheap DVDs from their relative in Malaysia. What's that all about? How can they press and distribute Disney DVDs so cheaply? Is that legal, or just unprosecutable?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe I have been brainwashed, but I really don't think it is unfair to expect an artist to receive payment for producing a piece of art. If you were more friendly Coldplay may only sell one album in Poland, yet the whole country could be listening to it."

*my response* Do you also think its unfair that musicians get absolutely no money whatsoever for tracks sold at the Itunes music store, but the labels do instead, which had nothing to do with the creation of the music itself?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So if I buy a gun I can shoot anything I want to?

I dunno, I guess I must be brainwashed as I just can't see it."

*my response* Sure you can shoot whatever you want to, just not without consequences. Distributing music either uploading or downloading doesn't endanger peoples or animals lives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, don't get me wrong; I'm not an RIAA fan. (my response--playing devil's advocate with another entity would be more productive, imho) I think that consumers should be legally allowed to rip a CD that they own into any format they want - for their personal use. --my response: I agree 100% but to allow for personal use means that those that wish to commit REAL infringement of copyrgiht, i.e. copying music and SELLING IT for monetary gain, would always be prevalent and unstoppable for ever, therefore, in THEIR minds, fair use must be decimated, because there is no other solution, they don't understand what it means to provide incentive to buy their products by providing better quality, UN-compressed music that isnt overclipped to hell at 0dB RMS, distorted, and then to have insult to injury added with DRM on top of it.

"What I don't understand is the concept that someone who does not own the CD can legally own a rip from that CD (whether it be a CD-R, an MP3, etc.)."

Now, the rest of this will fill in the cracks a bit more:

Intellectual Property Expert Discusses Copyright Protection

http://www.boycottriaa.com/article/19509


"If we don't find a way of effectively protecting copyright through a system of personal property . . ."

If we don't find a way of effectively making a distinction in our minds between tangible property and creative ideas (including songs), the distorted blurring will keep working in favor of the entertainment cartel and other entities who are determined to continue garnering inappropriate CONTROL at the public's expense.

"Folks, PLEASE get away from thinking of copyright in the same manner with "ownership". You don't OWN anything when you write a song or draw a picture. You merely hold a copyright to that work. There is no "OWNERSHIP" involved." — Shmoo

True dat.
The RIAA (and their complicit lackeys in the news media and on Capitol Hill) frequently refer to uploading/downloading of copyrighted files as "piracy" or "theft" instead of infringement. However, digital music cannot be stolen in the sense of depriving the owner of ownership; only tangible property can be "stolen" in the true sense of the word. (CodeWarrior has an adamant treatise awaiting any doubter!)

The thrust for a new world order would have so-called "intellectual property" be internationally designated as a right to be protected. But we're here to say the truth: namely, there AIN'T no such thing as "intellectual property" in the first place — only intellectual IDEAS (which, it may be granted, can have intellectual copyrights).

This conceptual distinction is needed to oppose the term “intellectual property”, which is more than an insignificant, trendy misnomer. It is an intentional blurring of reality which serves the purposes of the content cartel and the impetus for global government.
In both instances, CONTROL is the modus operandi."



"Our most effective educational tool, I am sad to say, is our well-publicized litigation against individuals. Unfortunately, most of the educational programs that we launched prior to our litigation campaign fell on deaf ears. Our litigation efforts, on the other hand, while not wildly popular with the public, have generated a tremendous awareness of the illegality of unauthorized file sharing."

What he REALLY is saying:

"We are trying our best to spook the sh*t out of a lot of people with half-truths and extreemly well funded law-suits against those we think we can bully into "settlements" in order to mind-fu*k the public into BUYING crappy DRM infected inferior downloads by making them afraid of exercising what would otherwise be considered fair-use sampling before deciding to buy in the minds of reasonable thinking folk."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 21 2006, 09:10
Post #25





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



You really should use the Quote button; it makes quoting posts a lot easier, and easier for other members to read your post.

You seem have to have mistaken me a. for someone who gives a damn, and b. an RIAA employee. I am not either, but I will attempt to answer your response this once, and then post no more on the subject.

QUOTE (TrueAudio @ Feb 21 2006, 12:41 AM)
When you have a plumber come and fix your toilet, does he get paid on a per flush basis for the rest of his life, or does he only get paid for the original job (or performance)?  Or if someone gets a car fixed by a mechanic, does the mechanic get paid every time you start your car, or did he get paid one time only for the parts and labor he performed?
Bad analogy. I also don't pay the artist every time I play a CD. Are you suggesting the artist should get paid once when the CD is mastered, but get no royalties for any discs sold?

The analogy with regard to freely distributing ripped music would be that, when a plumber fixes my toilet, he must fix my friends' for free also.

QUOTE (TrueAudio @ Feb 21 2006, 12:41 AM)
Do you also think its unfair that musicians get absolutely no money whatsoever for tracks sold at the Itunes music store, but the labels do instead, which had nothing to do with the creation of the music itself?
I must admit I don't really understand this setup. However an artist is signed to a label under contact; what that contract entails is their business. The label undertakes various work for an artist that I suppose deserves some recompense (developing rootkits is a costly business). Are you suggesting that, by sharing ripped files, this is benefitting the artist more?

QUOTE (TrueAudio @ Feb 21 2006, 12:41 AM)
Sure you can shoot whatever you want to, just not without consequences.  Distributing music either uploading or downloading doesn't endanger peoples or animals lives.
Again, irrelevant; you've missed the point. This is the point: You cannot say that by purchasing an object you have the rights to do anything you wish with that object. It just isn't the case, whether it's a gun or a CD.

QUOTE (TrueAudio @ Feb 21 2006, 12:41 AM)
What he REALLY is saying:

"We are trying our best to spook the sh*t out of a lot of people with half-truths and extreemly well funded law-suits against those we think we can bully into "settlements" in order to mind-fu*k the public into BUYING crappy DRM infected inferior downloads by making them afraid of exercising what would otherwise be considered fair-use sampling before deciding to buy in the minds of reasonable thinking folk."
Nothing that you have said has changed my perception. However I also agree that it is useful for people to try before they buy. That said, isn't that what the radio is for? Less mainstream bands can, and do, provide poor quality samples on their website for evaluation purposes. I know that this is not ideal; I'm not sure of my stance on this one; whether I have one, or particularly care to adopt one. The simple fact is that most people who use P2P do not eventually buy the album; it is used as an alternative to making a purchase.

QUOTE (TrueAudio @ Feb 21 2006, 12:41 AM)
playing devil's advocate with another entity would be more productive, imho
OK, thanks.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Feb 21 2006, 12:47


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd September 2014 - 05:06