YOU THERE, LISTENING TO YOUR OWN MUSIC! HANDS UP AGAINST THE WALL, FEET BACK AND SPREAD 'EM!
Here's one that probably reaches across the political divide. The record industry is now suing people for copying THEIR LAWFULLY PURCHASED MUSIC from CD into their computers, notwithstanding that the owner is not sharing, uploading, downloading or giving it to or with any third parties.
In other words, RIAA is taking the position that you can't buy their members' music in one form of medium and consume it in another form.
No matter what these folks have done over the last five years, the sale of physically self-contained music media has tanked. The music we buy is electronic impulses. If we can't copy it from our CD's onto our computer, can we buy it on our computers and not copy it to our MP3 players?
This just has to break bad for all concerned.
posted by UMRBlog @ 09:57
10 comments
10 Comments:
Yeah, being as that I NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH, they'll have fun with me that day if that day should ever come.
Oh, that's funny. I just tried to call the RIAA on their site and it rang of the wall and back.
http://riaa.org/aboutus.php
I tell ya man, these people are just like the school district. They claim to have the artist (kids) interest at the forefront when they only give the artist 5 or 6 cents on the dollar (split 4 or 5 ways mind you).
I love Filetopia.Com BTW
having a good copy of music helps me supplement my memory as to how the tune went (outside of remembering bits and pieces of it).
Now I AM twisting...
I'm dreaming of a white...deposition!!!
I think they just don't want you burning a disc for a friend.
1327,
That's what I first thought but it ain't so. The lawsuit stakes out the very act of copying to your own computer as the mischief. Even the defendants' own lawyer said, before he read the complaint "Oh, they don't mean that. There must be some mistake."
TYFCB & HNY
I mean by preventing someone from downloading to their own computer, they can't burn a disc for your friend.
There's no difference in me sharing a file with someone across the planet and me giving it to a friend on disk across the street.
I can see no difference...
It's just the volume of data that they're "concerned" about.
It's only a matter of time before they try to bust me remembering or reciting a piece of music live.
Also, I would never sell someone else's music like a used CD shop would and profit from it.
My advice to the defendant: jury trial.
I have a hard time believing 12 grumpy people will be happy about the RIAA dragging their asses through a trial to convict someone for loading music on to their computers or I-Pods.
If it's illegal to load music onto a computer, wouldn't it also be illegal to load it on an I-Pod? And if it's illegal to load music onto an I-Pod which isn't specifically purchased for the I-Pod, shouldn't the RIAA be suing Apple for not installing technology to prevent MP3s from being made from legal sources and copied to I-Pods?
And what about all those presidential candidates who said they had a whole bunch of cool music on their I-Pods? Why isn't the RIAA going after them? If you want to make an example out of someone, shouldn't it be a high profile figure like a U.S. Senator?
Carl,
So great to have you come by! I think the decision was made that it's easier to intimidate a pom-pon than a Senator. For some reason this all makes me wonder what's on Lindsay Graham's I-Pod. I'll bet Snoop has left the building.
TYFCB and HNY
"And what about all those presidential candidates who said they had a whole bunch of cool music on their I-Pods? Why isn't the RIAA going after them? If you want to make an example out of someone, shouldn't it be a high profile figure like a U.S. Senator?"
It's called selective prosecution.
Read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
Post a Comment
<< Home