- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Eyes+Next+Possible+Targets+CD+Burners+Radio+Listeners/article9218.htm
First, my thoughts on IP issues:
OK, I tend to support protecting IP. I understand the concept and I get the point. Sometimes I think the RIAA can go too far. The case mentioned above now has a single mother owing $222,000 for not making any money off of the product. If I were the RIAA I would be more upset about used CD sales, because money is exchanging hands, and not going to the industry. I think getting in a tizzy over someone sending their friend a song for free, while still hurting the industry ( I get that), is doing more to turn fans away completely than anything else. Combine that with the very few examples of actual good music coming out and I can completely understand why the music industry keeps losing sales. I think I may have bought a couple of CDs in the last five years, and I haven't gotten free digital industry copyrighted music in that time either. I just have no interest in most of the new stuff and I am less and less likely to support some of these scare tactics.
Now, to my main point:
Now making a copy of a song I bought, for my own use, is illegal? That is what she is saying she perceives it to be in the first part I bolded. So, do I need to pay for a song on my PC, a song on my iPod, a song on my PS3, and a song on a CD if I want that ability? Thank god my PS3 uses media sharing, although you could technically say that is copying to a cache.
Depending on how far they intend to take this it could mean that the nature of programs like iTunes is illegal because they download to the PC hard drive and then copy it to the player. Should I now go and delete all the back up copies on my hard drive? If I back them up on a data disc do I have to get rid of all those too? If my iPod quits reading properly I lose all those songs and that would be equivalent to my CD player breaking and taking out all my CDs with it. Then I guess I could sue Apple for damages to replace all my lost music?
I believe the RIAA lawyers are getting a bit too broad to the point that they are making it impossible to enjoy music in any form at all.
Then this current case in the UK (second part I bolded) is making matters even worse. If someone overhears a radio I listen to at my desk it is a public performance? I am not playing it for their enjoyment. What about guys with boom boxes in parks playing basketball or a guy driving along with his windows down? At what point does the industry say, "Hey guys, enjoy our entertainment product." I guess I should keep my headphones on me at all times because I would hate to pay a fine because someone can hear my music I didn't intend for them to hear.
My personal thought on all this with the way the industry is attacking the digital music to the point of making it nearly unusable is that they realize it can make their jobs unnecessary. Like I said, I haven't gotten any industry copyrighted digital music in years, but I have found a number of independent bands via podcasts and whatnot that put their songs out there themselves, not giving the record companies 99% of their sales. These bands are really good, and I suspect part of it is because they can make their money from sales and don't have to tour for 18 months to make money. Instead they spend time making music at home. Or they are putting their music out for free because they love the music and are happy working a normal job and doing small local concerts on the side.
I knew some guys in college who made their first album themselves and have grown in popularity regionally. They offer their songs for free streaming listening on their Web site and you can get the rest by buying CDs, they paid to have made by renting studio time and paying for the discs up front, at their concerts. Now they use a small local studio to run their affairs, but they made their own way to start.
If the idea of unsigned artists doing their own thing online spreads the industry will be hurt. Making online an annoyance to listeners slows this progression. I have seen this big corporation attempt to stop independents happen in the podcast-only-novel community. One author nearly got his print version shut down on Amazon when a publisher called them and a mainstream author accused online authors of being like scabs in a union.
That went on a slight tangent, but my point is that I see this as the industry trying to hold a claim to IP by preventing the actual creative mind from being able to keep the rights to their own IP, and having seen it happen in other places I think I may be on to something. The RIAA is so determined that at this point they are trying to make it so you can't use speakers unless you are alone in a soundproof room.
I don't want to steal music, but I do want to enjoy it without carrying around a book of CDs and headphones.
article
First, my thoughts on IP issues:
OK, I tend to support protecting IP. I understand the concept and I get the point. Sometimes I think the RIAA can go too far. The case mentioned above now has a single mother owing $222,000 for not making any money off of the product. If I were the RIAA I would be more upset about used CD sales, because money is exchanging hands, and not going to the industry. I think getting in a tizzy over someone sending their friend a song for free, while still hurting the industry ( I get that), is doing more to turn fans away completely than anything else. Combine that with the very few examples of actual good music coming out and I can completely understand why the music industry keeps losing sales. I think I may have bought a couple of CDs in the last five years, and I haven't gotten free digital industry copyrighted music in that time either. I just have no interest in most of the new stuff and I am less and less likely to support some of these scare tactics.
Now, to my main point:
Now making a copy of a song I bought, for my own use, is illegal? That is what she is saying she perceives it to be in the first part I bolded. So, do I need to pay for a song on my PC, a song on my iPod, a song on my PS3, and a song on a CD if I want that ability? Thank god my PS3 uses media sharing, although you could technically say that is copying to a cache.
Depending on how far they intend to take this it could mean that the nature of programs like iTunes is illegal because they download to the PC hard drive and then copy it to the player. Should I now go and delete all the back up copies on my hard drive? If I back them up on a data disc do I have to get rid of all those too? If my iPod quits reading properly I lose all those songs and that would be equivalent to my CD player breaking and taking out all my CDs with it. Then I guess I could sue Apple for damages to replace all my lost music?
I believe the RIAA lawyers are getting a bit too broad to the point that they are making it impossible to enjoy music in any form at all.
Then this current case in the UK (second part I bolded) is making matters even worse. If someone overhears a radio I listen to at my desk it is a public performance? I am not playing it for their enjoyment. What about guys with boom boxes in parks playing basketball or a guy driving along with his windows down? At what point does the industry say, "Hey guys, enjoy our entertainment product." I guess I should keep my headphones on me at all times because I would hate to pay a fine because someone can hear my music I didn't intend for them to hear.
My personal thought on all this with the way the industry is attacking the digital music to the point of making it nearly unusable is that they realize it can make their jobs unnecessary. Like I said, I haven't gotten any industry copyrighted digital music in years, but I have found a number of independent bands via podcasts and whatnot that put their songs out there themselves, not giving the record companies 99% of their sales. These bands are really good, and I suspect part of it is because they can make their money from sales and don't have to tour for 18 months to make money. Instead they spend time making music at home. Or they are putting their music out for free because they love the music and are happy working a normal job and doing small local concerts on the side.
I knew some guys in college who made their first album themselves and have grown in popularity regionally. They offer their songs for free streaming listening on their Web site and you can get the rest by buying CDs, they paid to have made by renting studio time and paying for the discs up front, at their concerts. Now they use a small local studio to run their affairs, but they made their own way to start.
If the idea of unsigned artists doing their own thing online spreads the industry will be hurt. Making online an annoyance to listeners slows this progression. I have seen this big corporation attempt to stop independents happen in the podcast-only-novel community. One author nearly got his print version shut down on Amazon when a publisher called them and a mainstream author accused online authors of being like scabs in a union.
That went on a slight tangent, but my point is that I see this as the industry trying to hold a claim to IP by preventing the actual creative mind from being able to keep the rights to their own IP, and having seen it happen in other places I think I may be on to something. The RIAA is so determined that at this point they are trying to make it so you can't use speakers unless you are alone in a soundproof room.
I don't want to steal music, but I do want to enjoy it without carrying around a book of CDs and headphones.
