A few articles for your reading... pleasure?
Since SlimDevice's product depends on copying CDs (and other sources) to computers, I think this opinion from the RIAA that such copying is not "fair use" is rather relevant to those of us with Squeezeboxes.
If you feel so inclined, you can probably write your congressperson and ask them to tell the RIAA to go get stuffed.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: RIAA is evil
2006-02-16, 10:11 #1
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
RIAA is evil
2006-02-17, 08:55 #2
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- East Lansing, MI
Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not an expert in copyright law. This message is a gross overgeneralization.
Put this in context. The RIAA and MPAA do not like the results of two court decisions, Universal v. Sony, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (the "Betamax Case") and RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999) (the "Diamond Rio Case"). Put simply, the Betamax Case is what you point to when defending time-shifting and the Diamond Rio case is what you point to when defending place-shifting.
Not only do the RIAA and MPAA dislike those decisions, but there's good reason for the RIAA and MPAA to think that they might be able to get the results changed. For one thing, the courts in question were (mostly) doing statutory analysis. That is, the courts were deciding what Congress meant and if you lobby Congress to change the rules (a la the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse act) then the court decisions go out the window.
There is a theoretical limit below which fair use cannot go ("constitutional fair use"), but I believe the consensus view is that your TiVo and your FLAC rips depend on statutory, not constitutional, fair use and can be taken away by Congress.
Evil? The RIAA is doing their job. They represent "rights owners" whose interests are served by increasing the effectiveness of copyright and decreasing the extent of the public domain and fair use rights. Our legal system pretty much assumes that when groups have competing views of what the rules should be, they will each advocate their own position and the resulting conflict of ideas will end up generating a fair result.
What makes this type of conflict seem unfair isn't law, it's economics - specifically the concept of a collective action problem. When the conflict is between a single person or small group on the one hand and a large group on the other, the result tends to favor the small group because (1) it's harder to organize the large group and (2) there is a greater tendency in the large group to count on the rest of the group to protect you. (The latter problem is "freeriding." Have you donated to EFF this year? I haven't.) If you can solve this, you may get the Bank of Sweden prize that Mancur Olson didn't live long enough to be awarded...
This does not mean that you should just hang your head. Recognize the RIAA's or MPAA's comments for what they are - an attempt to couch the issues in the terms most favorable to their clients. Once you do that, it becomes much easier to give those comments the appropriate moral weight (i.e., zero) and engage in this type of discussion with your friends and family.
2006-02-17, 09:39 #3Joe HartleyGuest
Re: RIAA is evil
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:55:09 -0800
SMWinnie <SMWinnie.23dseb (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not an expert in copyright law.
> This message is a gross overgeneralization.
> Put this in context. The RIAA and MPAA do not like the results of two
> court decisions, Universal v. Sony, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (the "Betamax
> Case") and RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)
> (the "Diamond Rio Case").
Oddly enough, though, in the MGM vs. Grokster case last year, the lawyer
for MGM had this to say:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's
been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take
a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your
So who the hell is the RIAA really speaking for?
It's sad that the RIAA has their heads so far up their backsides that they
don't realize that they're being so zealous about a position that they've
ceased to represent the views of the very entities they claim to represent.
I'm sorry if the RIAA thinks I should have to buy a CD to play in my car
and buy a download for my Squeezebox/iPod/laptop. That just isn't going
to happen, no matter how blue they turn from holding their breath.
I have no problem paying for music I listen to, but thanks to the RIAA, I
now purchase very, very little music that comes from RIAA member entities,
because they refuse to be in touch with reality.
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh (AT) brainiac (DOT) com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
2006-02-17, 13:22 #4Originally Posted by jasenj1
As someone else pointed out, the RIAA are doing their job and representing business interests, not moral issues. I'm sure they would like to take it to the level that every person who listens to a piece of music needs to pay, rather like going to the cinema. It isn't a criminal issue really, it's a revenue one - how to squeeze more out of the consumer for the same product.
The sad thing is that most people, including me, are happy to pay for their music. What they aren't happy about is being treated as criminals, which is what is happening. I don't like copy protection because it affects audio quality and more importantly labels me as a thief before I have committed any crime. As for the RIAA arguing that backups aren't necessary because you can always buy another copy, how does that fit with their other policy of selling limited editions CDs? Or deleting CDs from obscure artists because they don't sell in the millions?
Last edited by CardinalFang; 2006-02-17 at 15:47.
2006-02-17, 22:21 #5
I have no problem paying for ONE CD. However, no one better dare tell me what I can and cannot do with that copy for my own personal use.
As a musician myself, I feel the RIAA can burn in hell.
In fact, I cast a jihad on them. May all of Islam rise up and strike them down.