Y'Know, Nobody Had Ever Heard Of These Asses Four Years Ago

[filkertom]

Slashdot links to an EFF article about the RIAA's assertion that ripping CDs to iPods is not fair use.

Okay, straight-up: Who here thinks the RIAA has a valid point? If you want to get into the larger issue of copy protection and artist royalties 'n' stuff, that's fine (you all know how I feel). But do you believe that digitally ripping CD audio to another format, for playing on another device, is wrong?

Update: I just wanted to say how proud I am of all of you -- not merely for your thoughtful comments and your concerns for the artists vs. the concerns of the RIAA, but of how well you have grasped what they seem completely incapable of grasping. See, the question above should've included the phrase "... for your personal use only". But I never had to worry about that. You guys all get the difference between making a copy for every device in the house and making a copy for every friend on your FList. The RIAA doesn't.

Comments

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

IANAL, yet, but that's not stopping me...

Here's the US Code on Fair Use (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [where the rights of a copyright holder are spelled out], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

I imagine that ripping as you describe is safe thanks to 4 (if you already own the CD, and you're not sharing it with anybody, then there's no effect on the market) and 1 (personal use, not commercial). Possibly 2 as well--it's music, I'm trying to play it on a music player...you get the idea.

[kender42.livejournal.com]

I think the RIAA are frickin idiots.

You shell out your cash, you have that music. Period. If you want to rip it to your iPod, go ahead. If you want to rip it to your hard drive so you can play it over your home theater/media center, go ahead.

And if it's a Metallica CD, if you want to have something to use as a coaster - it's yours to choose.

The RIAA are in it for one thing - money. They want every freaking penny they can pinch out of consumers, and they don't care who gets hurt. Honestly I buy 90% of my music from the iTunes Music Store. The only CD's I have bought in the past year (hardcopy media - not talking iTunes stuff) is your stuff, Tom, and some music from a band in Sweden that isn't carried on this side of the pond.

Screw the RIAA.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You shell out your cash, you have that music. Period.

AMEN! This is ridiculous. I'm currently listening to my CDs to pick which songs to put on my iPod (fortunately, most were bought before iPods were invented, so I don't have to worry about computer tag-alongs.)

What the RIAA is saying is that if I buy a CD and listen to it in my house, I'm okay. If I listen to it in my car, I'm okay. If I listen to it in my walkman, I'm okay. But if I listen to it in my iPod, I'm a thief? WTF??? I've already paid for the bloody thing!

[codevixen.livejournal.com]

Sooo... what they're saying is, if you've bought the CD but you want to listen to it on something not a CD player... you have to buy the music AGAIN? That doesn't make any sense. If you've already bought the music, you should be able to listen to it however you want.

Ah, Sarcasm

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

Ah, but according to the RIAA you are depriving those poor starving artists of their rightful due royalties by not buying the music in each and every format available... We won't go in to how little of the sale goes to the artists, of course... Things like the RIAA are why if I buy a CD, at this point, I buy from used stores (FTMP.) Money-grubbing never impressed me.

[gundo.livejournal.com]

I think that if you've bought the license to a song, you are entitled to fair use of that license, including moving it to a format that you can use. If you've bought it on a tape and want to download the mp3, or on vinyl and want to convert it to digital, fair 'nuff.

The RIAA is a PITA

[random314.livejournal.com]

Ripping a CD that one has legally acquired for use in another device: perfectly fine.
Making copies of the CD or sharing the ripped files with others: Naughty, naughty!

Unfortunately, there are entirely too many people who feel that it is perfectly fine to rip off the hard work of musicians/authors/filmmakers, either by sharing the product for free or by selling it for their own profit, and that is why the RIAA is fighting any sort of copying so fiercely.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

I record music. Minstrosity () has three CDs out.

The RIAA needs to take a long walk off a short plank after taking a piss facing a stiff breeze.

If someone buys one of our CDs and rips it to iPod or their computer or a backup CD, that's not a big deal to me.

Back when we had but one CD out, we were at KCRF and someone came up to us and said "I have a bootleg of one of your CDs!!!" He then bought one for himself. It's disconcerting, but he made good and we don't have a problem with that. And if someone's going to be a pirate about it, well, we want the music out there, although we'd like to make money on it and therefore encourage people to buy one of their own. But the bottom line is - buy a copy for yourself and do with it for yourself what you want.

(And if it's *out of print*, I have less of a problem with pirating, because at that point, the copyright holder has no further expectation of making money on it - that's why they let it go out of print.)

[rsmit212.livejournal.com]

I think the RIAA is so out of touch with reality, it's a shame.

They claim to be protecting artists. They're not. They are only protecting the traditional record publishing institutions. They are protecting the industry that tells me that even though I have paid for music once, if the disk gets lost, stolen or wears out, I have to pay for a brand new copy of the music. Simply because the transport/storage medium failed. Ridiculous. This was the very reason the fair use clause was put into the laws. Does fair use make it easier to pirate the music? Yes. But let's find other ways to stop the pirating problem. (We'll not go into the causes of pirating music.) Let's stop punishing the average joe because of the lunatic fringe. I should be able to copy everything in my CD library onto an iPod or other digital player to save on wear and tear of the physical media. Once I pay for a copy of a song, it's mine to listen to in whatever form wish. I've paid the artist for his work. Done. If I were to commission a song, or a painting or whatever, I would always make sure I make a print or copy if physically possible and use the copy for display to protect the original.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I bought the music; that includes IMO an unlimited personal-use license. If I want to put a CD that I've bought on a cassette tape, I can. If I want to copy it to my hard drive, I can. If I want to convert it to MP3s and play it on my iPod, I can. Period.

What I can't do is make copies of that CD to sell to other people. Making copies to give away is a bit of a grey area. My personal view is that I won't copy entire CDs if they are still commercially available; I will make and give away compilations ("mix CDs" seems to be the current term), and I have no hesitation about making copies of something that's out of print. But still not to sell.

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

As an artist with a few albums out (and another coming in a few weeks), I would feel terribly guilty if I expected people who bought my album to buy it off itunes AGAIN. I fully expect peolpe are going to rip the cds to ipod - that's pretty much what cds are for nowadays. It's almost like saying that if you buy cake mix, you're supposed to just eat the mix. If you want a cake, buy a cake.

[bedlamhouse]

Ripping it to an iPod is really no different to me than making a backup. All you're doing is changing the format, and the copyright (including the SR copyright) is only on the content, not the format.

Now, there is probably a technicality there that if you rip it and put it in your car, on your home system, and on your office system, and then people listen to it on more than one system at once you really are affecting the sales (if copies weren't made you'd have to buy a new copy for each location), but I think that was covered in the whole can-you-make-a-cassette-copy debate. The only changes now are quality (digital copies of digital format are exact duplicates, as opposed to copying to a less "clean" medium), quantity (multiple digital copies are much easier to make), and control (digital copy protection is ostensibly easier to implement than protection of analog works would have been).

As Bedlam House always states:

"Unauthorized duplication causes bad karma. Please support the right of artists to control the distribution of their own material. Only make copies for your personal use."

[armb.livejournal.com]

> Ripping it to an iPod is really no different to me than making a backup.

The good news is, the RIAA agrees with you. The bad news is, they think
"Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...." (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php)

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

When I buy music, be it on CD, DVD, iTunes or MP3 files, where and when I play it and what I play it on are MY BUSINESS! Next they'll be saying we have to have seperate CDs for every player in the house.

Fair Use is just that - fair use. And compressing the music so I can have a day's worth of tunes on my desk (or a weeks worth on an iPod) is fair use. I paid for it, and it's mine. What I do with it is my business, even if I set fire to the disc. This is just another attempt by the sleezy moneygrubbing music executives to recover an iron grip on the music biz again. They must either adapt to the times or go out of business while new companies take over.

I'm certain the executives who made horse hitches complained about the automobile, too.

[solarbird]

The RIAA has no actual interest in what is actually "fair use" or not "fair use." What they are actually interested in is figuring out how to get as much money out of you as they can. They would very much like "play per play," tho', well, good luck getting it, even in this corporate-welfare-bastard-dominated Congress.

[louisadkins.livejournal.com]

If the RIAA actually somehow managed to get it regulated to pay each time I would play a CD, I would have to boycott...

Of course, I am already boycotting Sony/BMG Music for their CD problems, so it would not be as much of a stretch for me.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

The RIAA already tried this tactic, way back in the early days of the whole MP3 bruhaha, and was told in no uncertain terms that people making a digitial copy of a CD (or tape, or vinyl) is covered under fair use. Now they seem to be gearing up to get congress to pass an amendment making that illegal, and the bribes, err, I mean, the perfectly legal campaign contributions that in no way are meant to influence congressional decision-making, are flowing heavily (roughly 80% to republicans, naturally). The RIAA is making noise about this now in order to make it a "talking point" so their congressional sock puppets can parrot it on the hill, thus making it an issue, in hopes that only their point will be presented. However, they continue to ignore the fact that it will be like outlawing breathing, and doomed to failure. The only question is, how much damage will be done before it's admitted to be a failure?

As for the whole file sharing-ripping-etc, it's always happened. People loaned records to friends, then made tape compilations for friends, now they rip music to share with friends and, in a larger sense, put on-line to share with strangers. Very few put music online believing that they're ripping off musicians , and fewer still try to sell bootlegs (one such person I know was complaining that he couldn't sell pirated copies anymore because people could download them, without once getting the irony ;-)

One of the reasons file sharing is so popular is that traditional media has failed to meet the needs of the audience. Record labels only make music _they_ think will sell, and only promote what they think will make huge profits, so thanks to payola and other corporate games, most radio stations sound the same, playing the same playlists over and over, which forces people who want something different, or better, to look on-line for diversity, which fuels the demand for more on-line content. This is why the iTunes music store was such a success right from the start, it offered the diversity and user control that other venues failed to provide. The RIAA has always been against consumer control, they are fixated on the old business model that only they can control what music is available and only they can control how it is used, which is why they will fail. I mean, look at Sony's digital walkman and e-book. They killed them both due to their draconian DRM.

And on the topic of file sharing in general, right now it's the best way for new and unknown music to be heard. Many times a friend suggests some new music, I download it to sample, and if I like it, I buy it, but the thing to keep in mind is that without file sharing I probably would have never heard it. I can't remember her name, but there's a 70's star who became pretty obsucre during the 80's and 90's but has a web site now where she tells how she was lucky to get $5 from the labels selling her old albums, often having to go to court and sue just to get that, until napster hit the scene. Then the orders for her live performance CDs (that she made herself while playing local bars) jumped from two a month to 200, with nearly every order starting with "I downloaded some of your music and think it's great! I want to buy more." Also, talk to any independent music store, they'll tell you people who download music _buy_ more music. The phrase "Music Junkies" is often used.

So I say go after those who sell pirated material, that's clearly wrong and illegal. Frown at, but don't get facist, the people who download/upload music (and movies, books, etc) but don't buy what they keep. Turn a blind eye to those who download to sample or to find new artists. And always allow the consumer to control to use their purchase in ways that suit them best.

[crwilley.livejournal.com]

...there's a 70's star who became pretty obsucre during the 80's and 90's but has a web site now where she tells how she was lucky to get $5 from the labels selling her old albums, often having to go to court and sue just to get that, until napster hit the scene.

I think the artist you're thinking of might have been Janis Ian (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html).

[sylverwolfe.livejournal.com]

grar! why should i tote around 6500 cds, on each of which there may be ONE song i'm in the mood to listen to today, when i can have my digital library playing the songs i want to hear in one compact bundle? when i want to liten to the whole cd, and sometimes i do, i'll plop the disc into my computer or cd player and rock out old-school. in the meantime, welcome to the 21st century, RIAA. if you don't let us listen to our music the way we want to, maybe we stop listening.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

(icon, of course, aimed at the RIAA)

IMHO things like this generate ill-will in potential purchasers and lead to more piracy from people who resent being ripped off.

It's been ages since I bought a brand new physical CD (hah, one of yours again!). I'd much rather buy mp3s and burn them to CD if I want to listen to them somewhere other than at my computer. I've discovered so many new artists online, and I'm vastly more likely to buy something I've had the chance to hear, not to mention recommend it to friends (I've hooked a good slice of my flist on Outgrabe, for example).

But then, I'm in "the live music capital of the world" (um, ooookay?) and it's no rare thing to see a bumpersticker saying "I'm a musician and I support filesharing".

[catlin.livejournal.com]

Riaa is again out of their mind. I am sorry, if I bought the disk, I should be able to use it digitally as well as on my old fashioned cd player that now I hear I may not be able to use for new music soon. I don't care if that means ripping it onto my hard drive, an Ipod, or making a copy so that when I want to listen to music on a trip I don't risk losing a several hundred doller cd collection to a random break in. This in fact is exactly why lately the only music I will buy is filk. I am tired of hearing the Riaa attacking people.

[tollermom]

Good grief... haven't we been around this hamster-wheel before? *sigh*

Personally, I think that as long as it's for your own personal use, you should be able to copy/reformat the purchased material however makes it most useable. I don't keep a stack of CDs in the truck any more... I have a pigtail connector for the iPod into the stereo. The iPod goes everywhere... the CDs stay safely at home, not getting scratched, overheated, frozen, dropped, lost, etc. The RIAA needs to just f*** off and go find someone else to annoy.

I have a second iPod (a Shuffle) that's just for workouts. I'm not using it at the same time as the other iPod or the CDs, so I don't see that having an additional copy of the songs on that memory stick is infringing anybody's rights. (And believe me, having now put out two CDs with Wild Mercy, I'm much more conscious of what it takes to do that, and of the fact that many artists at our end of the food chain are taking money out of their own pockets to pay production costs, so the last thing I would want would be the bad musical karma of ripping off another artist!)

For independent artists, the money from CD sales can make the difference in being able to pay the rent or the utilities... or it may be the difference in recording a new CD now or waiting 'til next year. But that just means that you should buy the CD (or the song, for folks who've got music available through iTMS or other digital outlets)... it doesn't, IMO, mean you should have to buy a copy for everywhere you personally would ever want to play it.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

I write rocketry books, with drawings that are useful as references for model makers. I publish with the full expectation that the owner will photocopy for his own use. At a national rocketry event, I remember one of my customers trying to get a page copied at the front desk of the hotel. They refused to copy it. The found me, and I went with them to the front desk, told them I was the copyright holder, and flashed my ID. Problem solved.

Since then I add a notice right next the the copyright in all my books indicating explicitly that the owner of the book may reproduce pages as required for building or documenting a model.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone owns my book, they may reproduce it for their own use all they want to.

Now the shop-owner who photocopied one of my books (all 128 pages!) because it was out of print and sold the copies in his shop was another case. Yes the book was out of print, but I was working on a revised edition at the time, and his bootlegs would be competing with the new edition. Unfortunately I couldn't take any more action than have a lawyer friend send him a nasty letter. I'm not sure what effect that had.

The parallel with music is clear, and to me the difference between copying for your own use and bootlegging is obvious.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Well, that depends on the circumstances surrounding individual occurences.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to think if I ever thought that RIAA has had a valid point.

Hmmm . . . no, I don't thiky I have.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

When I buy a CD of music, as far as I am concerned, I'm buying the content, not the particular method of encoding. Ripping a copy for my own personal use on another device is, I think, Fair Use.

[ldwheeler.livejournal.com]

My thoughts parallel just about everyone else's: If I have purchased music, I have paid for personal use of the intellectual property. Said property was delivered in a particular format, let's say a CD -- but since I've paid for that intellectual property, I believe I have the right to transfer it to other formats for my convenience -- making a personal-use cassette, ripping to hard drives, etc. I'm under no obligation, I believe, to pay for the same intellectual property two, three, four, ten times. As long as I HAVE indeed paid for it, reformatting for my own personal use is, as far as I'm concerned, my own business. If the RIAA wants to get silly about it and say I should never have someone over while a ripped track is playing on my Windows Media Player ... well, that's just too silly to bear comment. Next they'll be saying I can't even LOAN anyone a CD. :-)

Sharing music for free is a gray area -- a lot depends on whether it's being done to bypass someone paying for it (which is Not Good) or to promote the musicians' work and inspire someone to seek out and purchase more of it. It may not be Strictly Legal, but it's a common-sense issue. I've been known to, on occasion, rip a filk-sampler disc or two of selected tracks to introduce people to the diverse talents and stylings in the filk community ... though I never include more than one or two tracks from a particular recording or, generally, artist. And I try to provide album info, including purchasing outlets.

At any rate, I don't believe the RIAA is truly concerned about fair use, just about squeezing the dollars. I will support any musician and pay fair price for his or her artistry -- but I'm not going to pay five or six times for the same work.

You've been all over this thread...

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

... making the point, to greater or lesser success, about the legality.

I very specifically asked not about the legality. I asked if you thought it was wrong to rip a CD audio for use on another device. I extend this to, for instance, transfer old vinyl LPs to MP3. Or to make a copy of a cassette to CD to play in your car.

You can find details of laws all over the goddamn place. The laws were written by people influenced by recording industry lobbies. You can find recording artists, most notably of course Metallica, who have problems with unfettered distribution of their stuff.

But that's not the point I'm asking.

And I defy you to find an artist in any recording genre who's got a real problem with making a copy of a CD for use in another device owned by the same person.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

BTW: a little comment about two unrelated facts and how they explain the REAL reason for the dropping of CD sales...

http://shockwave77598.livejournal.com/330913.html

[gan-chan.livejournal.com]

I believe the RIAA is wrong.

Here's why.

The model under which consumption of music, books, art, video, etc. currently operates is that of "ownership". Everything is expressed in terms of ownership. I own such-and-so-many CDs, thus-and-some books.

If I buy a CD, I own the CD. If I buy a book, I own the book. I have purchased the right to consume that media, an unlimited number of times. If I choose to retype or OCR my book into an electronic text format, so that I can read it on my laptop or my PDA, then I have that right. I purchased that right when I purchased the physical object.

I did not purchase the right to resell or distribute copies of the object, or to make public exhibitions or readings of it, but I did purchase the right to make them for my own use. That is what you get when you spend $18 for a CD - not just the physical object but the right to consume it.

What the RIAA, MPAA, and certain book publishers want is to move to a "rental" model for their respective media, because if I buy a CD, they receive the same amount of money whether I listen to it one time or one billion times. They feel they ought to be paid per "consumption event." In other words, they want to monitor and invoice for every instance you listen to a song, or you read a word of a book, or you watch a scene in a movie. The simple reason for this is greed.

Jeremy Rifkin's book The Age of Access talks about this phenomenon in some depth.

As a matter of personal choice, I opt out of all "rental" schemes. If I want to watch a movie one time, I will either see it in the theater, borrow it from a friend, or check it out from a library. If I cannot do any of those things, I will do without.

Television is going the same way. Witness how hard the television industry continues to fight to get the "Broadcast Flag."

This is the same as the difference between renting an apartment and buying a house or a condominium. Between leasing or renting a car and buying one. Do I think the "rental" option should be available? Yes. Do I think consumers should be forced into it? Hell no, and if the entertainment conglomerates manage to succeed in their quest to do so, then they can expect me to opt out completely from their system.

If that means I have to go the rest of my life with only that "owned" media which I have in my possession already, then so be it. I'll survive, and I'll thrive. I'm already doing without television of any kind. Maybe if enough people agree with me and join me, we could even shake off the influence of the corporate-marionette douchebags who run our country today.