Copying music to your computer may be illegal - Page 11

Mosbonian · 01-02-2008, 08:24 PM

Who owns your music?

CNN's Sunny Hostin looks at the music industry's claims that downloading music to a computer could be breaking the law.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sho...sic.chetry.cnn

Seems the Recording industry now wants to make sure that you don't even download a CD to your own computer regardless if you aren't planning to share it?

Not sure what to make of this......seems a little extreme if you ask me.

mmaddog
*******

memyselfI · 01-03-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

No, I bought the new Star Wars on DVD because my kids want it. But again, I have HUNDREDS of videos on VCR that I have not purchased because I don't love them enough to buy them again. If it were easier to download them I would do it as well. But then, a movie is an entire piece of work. Like an entire CD would be.

I'm talking downloading songs. But that is why the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to download just songs instead of buying an entire piece of crap CD.

I own the music in that I purchased it once. To me, that was plenty enough times. If the format is change it's not my fault. I should not have to repurchase the same material ten times. And I don't. Thus, those artists are not losing a dime from me because I do not intend to repurchase their music ever again. I have it in boxes in my basement. I might purchase one or two of their songs if given the option.

Mr. Laz · 01-03-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

ahh ..... but it wasn't illegal to have a vcr version. I can take that VCR copy and put it any VCR i want and watch it. I can take the VCR copy over to my friend house and let him watch.

As long as i don't "charge" to watch that VCR copy then it's cool

rat bastard RIAA are basically doing they're very best to make everything illegal so they can just rent music to people.

pretty soon they will make you pay "per listen" like some giant jukebox so they can line their pocket with another 100 quintillion dollars.

each CD will have 'mission impossible' timers on them so they self-destruct after you listen to it 3 times unless you send a check to RIAA central.

WTF is wrong with you?

Adept Havelock · 01-03-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company. 99% of the time, the Record Company owns the Master Recordings and the Publisher OWNS the copyright.

Unless you are the copyright holder or the owner of the Master Recordings, YOU do not OWN the music.

Did you complain when Star Wars came out on DVD, even though you owned a VCR version? Did you make a fuss about "needing" to purchase it for a different format?

WTF is wrong with you?

So if I take my Licensed copy of Star Wars on VHS and make a copy to use for playback (so the original is not degraded), that is legal under the courts understanding of "fair use".

I don't mind paying for a DVD, as it's a different quality of product.

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?

Seems to me that's the exact same thing, and it's already covered under "fair use". No matter how much the RIAA whines about it.

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me. For the albums I wanted on CD, I bought them. For most of the rest, my MP3's do just fine.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?

The RIAA is NOT claiming that at this time. I wish the thread starter would make the correction.

It was incorrectly reported by several news agencies. BUT, if they ever try to make that claim, they're completely insane. That would NEVER hold up in a court of law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me.

I am in complete agreement.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by memyselfI

I'm talking downloading songs. But that is why the RIAA doesn't want you to be able to download just songs instead of buying an entire piece of crap CD.

Excuse me? What? Have you heard of iTunes? Amazon? Last time I checked, I was able to download a single song. If the RIAA were against that, then stores like iTunes wouldn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by memyselfI

I own the music in that I purchased it once. To me, that was plenty enough times. If the format is change it's not my fault. I should not have to repurchase the same material ten times. And I don't. Thus, those artists are not losing a dime from me because I do not intend to repurchase their music ever again. I have it in boxes in my basement. I might purchase one or two of their songs if given the option.

YOU DON'T OWN THE MUSIC. PERIOD.

If you want a digital copy, buy a CD or download it LEGALLY.

memyselfI · 01-03-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Doesn't matter a whit to me either way. I'll continue to digitally archive my music whether they like it or not. That way I can stream it to any room in the house, or burn it to disk for the car. As for the Vynil in my collection, I bought it once and won't buy most of it on CD's because 1) It's not worth it to me for most of it, and 2) A friend already converted most of it to MP3's. Sure, they don't sound as clear as a CD, but that doesn't bother me. For the albums I wanted, I bought them. For most of the rest, my MP3's do just fine.

Bravo.

This is where the RIAA really screwed themselves, IMO. If they had offered low res MP3 downloads for free or low cost then much of their problems would not have been created. They could have introduced this service BEFORE people got wind of how to do it themselves and created the mindset that obtaining this music was THE way of doing it even if there were other free ways. They would have then had the moral high ground to claim that cheating them out of a dollar was wrong because they OFFERED people a way to obtain music inexpensively. This could have been a marketing bonanza and a great public relations ploy to introduce themselves as purveyors of music for the masses using technology to create lower costs and more variety.

They could make more money buy offering higher res downloads for the audiophiles or those who really wanted CD quality music.

But NOOOOOOOOOO. They clung to antiquated beliefs that has nearly destroyed the industry from which they bottom feed.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

ahh ..... but it wasn't illegal to have a vcr version. I can take that VCR copy and put it any VCR i want and watch it. I can take the VCR copy over to my friend house and let him watch.

As long as i don't "charge" to watch that VCR copy then it's cool

rat bastard RIAA are basically doing they're very best to make everything illegal so they can just rent music to people.

pretty soon they will make you pay "per listen" like some giant jukebox so they can line their pocket with another 100 quintillion dollars.

each CD will have 'mission impossible' timers on them so they self-destruct after you listen to it 3 times unless you send a check to RIAA central.

WTF is wrong with you?

Dude,

Read the entire thread and read post #44. The trial is about illegal downloading, not whether it's legal or not to store your legally purchased CD's on your own computer.

I don't think there's a judge in the US that would outlaw copying a legally purchased CD to a computer.

Adept Havelock · 01-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The RIAA is NOT claiming that at this time. I wish the thread starter would make the correction.

The RIAA itself may not be, but some of their members clearly are. SONY-BMG's lead shyster, for one.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/s...s-is-stealing/

Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"

There's one of them RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-stealing.html

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

BUT, if they ever try to make that claim, they're completely insane. That would NEVER hold up in a court of law.

They've already proven themselves insane by trying to hold on to an obsolete way of doing business.

memyselfI · 01-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Excuse me? What? Have you heard of iTunes? Amazon? Last time I checked, I was able to download a single song. If the RIAA were against that, then stores like iTunes wouldn't exist.

YOU DON'T OWN THE MUSIC. PERIOD.

If you want a digital copy, buy a CD or download it LEGALLY.

Yes, I've used those services. And stores like that don't exist out of the goodness of the RIAA's heart. They exist reluctantly because of a come to the party late 'can't beat em, join em' realization by the RIAA.

**Baby Lee** · 01-03-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Why then is the RIAA claiming it is not legal for me to make a copy of my CD on my computer so the original isn't at risk of being damaged?

Just playing devils advocate, but the argument is two-fold.
1. You purchased a manifestation of the intellectual property in the form of a CD. As such, you are entitled to enjoyment of what the CD provides, in terms of fidelity and durability. The difficulty is that, for todays ears, CD is as much fidelity as is needed, and digitization makes durability perpetual. Think of it if there were some machine that digitized an operable automobile, and all of the sudden, people were buying new cars and immediately digitizing them, down to the gas in the tank, and they just threw them away when the tank emptied. That's a whole heck of a lot of settled expectations in a number of industries thrown on their ear. It may be unreasonable for the RIAA to both toll the fidelity and perpetuity of the CD format, and for them to bank on CDs degrading and losing fidelity for repeat business, but that was their settled expectation from prior business models.

2. Digitization, especially on a PC, means that there is just a mouse click between copying for personal archival purposes and copying for distribution.

KCHawg · 01-03-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Herein lies the problem:

You DO NOT own the music

You own a licensed COPY of the music that was distributed by said record company.

And I'll do with MY MY copy as I damn well please!

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Bravo.

This is where the RIAA really screwed themselves, IMO. If they had offered low res MP3 downloads for free or low cost then much of their problems would not have been created. They could have introduced this service BEFORE people got wind of how to do it themselves and created the mindset that obtaining this music was THE way of doing it even if there were other free ways. They would have then had the moral high ground to claim that cheating them out of a dollar was wrong because they OFFERED people a way to obtain music inexpensively. This could have been a marketing bonanza and a great public relations ploy to introduce themselves as purveyors of music for the masses using technology to create lower costs and more variety.

They could make more money buy offering higher res downloads for the audiophiles or those who really wanted CD quality music.

But NOOOOOOOOOO. They clung to antiquated beliefs that has nearly destroyed the industry from which they bottom feed.

First off, the RIAA is basically the watchdog of the major labels. They don't make decisions of whether or not to allow downloads, etc.

Secondly, offering low res or cheap downloads in 1997 would have done nothing to curb file sharing. NOTHING.

Music has no value to these people. Offer something for free, people will take it for free. The latest Radiohead record is the PERFECT example. More than 60% of the downloaders took it for free. FREE.

And if people REALLY were interested in paying for downloads, why did Shawn Fanning's company, SnoCap, law off 70% of its workforce? Maybe because unlike Napster, it wasn't free??

Yep, those fans REALLY care about the artist.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

The RIAA itself may not be, but some of their members clearly are. SONY-BMG's lead shyster, for one.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/s...s-is-stealing/

Sony BMG's head lawyer says ripping CDs is "stealing"

There's one of them RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-stealing.html

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

They've already proven themselves insane by trying to hold on to an obsolete way of doing business.

Dude, that link is old (October) and wrong. Wrong info.

Adept Havelock · 01-03-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Dude, that link is old (October) and wrong. Wrong info.

What part is incorrect?

Jennifer Parsier of Sony-BMG didn't make that claim?

I'm willing to bet the court documents confirm she did.

Perhaps you can prove otherwise, but I seriously doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

Sure, pull the other one. It's got bells on. They are also a lobbying group, and your attempt to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-03-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Yes, I've used those services. And stores like that don't exist out of the goodness of the RIAA's heart. They exist reluctantly because of a come to the party late 'can't beat em, join em' realization by the RIAA.

You really don't get this, do you? I mean, not at all, right?

The RIAA isn't above Sony, Universal, Warners or Capitol. They work FOR the labels. The record labels decide what is allowed legally on websites such as iTunes. Otherwise, The Beatles catalog would have been online since day ONE. But, it wasn't.

The RIAA is essentially a watchdog group. They don't make record company policy. They only try to enforce the laws set forth by the U.S. government.

01-02-2008, 08:24 PM
Mosbonian On Hiatus Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $2289700	Copying music to your computer may be illegal Who owns your music? CNN's Sunny Hostin looks at the music industry's claims that downloading music to a computer could be breaking the law. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/sho...sic.chetry.cnn Seems the Recording industry now wants to make sure that you don't even download a CD to your own computer regardless if you aren't planning to share it? Not sure what to make of this......seems a little extreme if you ask me. mmaddog *******
Posts: 11,350