OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim
  • Start date Start date
Alias wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:flj8et$jdt$1@aioe.org...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:flil83$ns7$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>>> (from
>>>>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8<
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In
>>>>> Europe, every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee
>>>>> to pay royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.
>>>>
>>>> Are you confusing the extra royalty paid on audio CD blanks?
>>>> You don't pay any extra on a pre-recorded CD/DVD other than the
>>>> usual rip-off that gets added to any market that is willing to pay.
>>>> Also you don't pay any extra on ordinary CD/DVD blanks, which is why
>>>> so many audio CD recorders were chipped to use the ordinary blanks.
>>>
>>> We pay what is called a "canon" on blank CDs and DVDs.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> We don't in the UK.
>
> It's a Spanish thing I guess, then. Read about it here:
>
> http://todoscontraelcanon.es/ (In Spanish)
>
> Alias



Canada used to but I think they stopped in the
last year. Here in the US any blank music media or
non computer burners, cassette decks, tape decks,
etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to
the recording industry.
caver1
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.

Got a link to that? I found the UPI & WP articles and the engadet updates,
but not the transcript.
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might surprise
> you.

found 'em:

Jury Instructions found here:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html

And the debate over it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel

<quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of making
available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's
exclusive copyright."

The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive. It's
not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger internet or to
who.

If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA really
has driven over a cliff.
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you. The
> RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to mp3s on his
> computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share folder.

ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)

Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's the
Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court. What I
think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a link to that
here:

http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html

The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not really
about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the world those
songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with KaZaA, I think he's
toast.
 
Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:32:49 -0500, caver1 wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:flj8et$jdt$1@aioe.org...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:flil83$ns7$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>> jim wrote:
>>>>>>> (from
>>>>>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/
recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> 8<
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that this Gestapo crap only happens in the USA. In
>>>>>> Europe, every time we buy a CD or DVD, we are paying an extra fee
>>>>>> to pay royalties and fair use is the golden rule here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you confusing the extra royalty paid on audio CD blanks? You
>>>>> don't pay any extra on a pre-recorded CD/DVD other than the usual
>>>>> rip-off that gets added to any market that is willing to pay. Also
>>>>> you don't pay any extra on ordinary CD/DVD blanks, which is why so
>>>>> many audio CD recorders were chipped to use the ordinary blanks.
>>>>
>>>> We pay what is called a "canon" on blank CDs and DVDs.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> We don't in the UK.
>>
>> It's a Spanish thing I guess, then. Read about it here:
>>
>> http://todoscontraelcanon.es/ (In Spanish)
>>
>> Alias
>
>
>
> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the US
> any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
> industry.

That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
*one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from Japanese
artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.

I don't see how legally a royalty can be charged on something just for
the possibility that someone *might* use it for music.

Don't worry RIAA, I'm not going to pirate your precious little Britney
Spears. Wouldn't listen to her if you paid me to...

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

<nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3abaa83f-c97c-45af-beac-933b59c29c60@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 3, 5:34 am, "Gilgamesh" <gilgam...@spam.me.not> wrote:
>> "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > (from
>> >http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_indus...)
>>
>> > "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>
>> > Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>
>> > SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
>> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that
>> is
>> not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>
> Yes, but I thought I had read somewhere that region coding is illegal
> in Australia (that is, the dvd readers sold there play anything,
> regardless of region).

That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
play them in our local units.
But region coding is not the same as making a backup copy.

>
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"Gilgamesh" wrote:


> That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
> play them in our local units.

....although in areas with region-coding, particularly those with a region
other than one, it creates a situation where the consumer is actually
better-off downloading a pirate DivX/XViD copy than buying a genuine DVD one.
Perhaps the Fat Cats have yet to realise that to some extent they are
creating the piracy problem by way of their own malpractices.

Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the US
>> any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>> industry.
>
> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from Japanese
> artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.

You have the wrong end of the stick.
The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the cheap,
royalty free, computer disks.

>
> I don't see how legally a royalty can be charged on something just for
> the possibility that someone *might* use it for music.

Its in the law so it legal.
I don't see how you can keep saying laws are illegal.
 
Re: OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your OwnComputer

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:14:03 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the
>>> US any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>>> industry.
>>
>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from
>> Japanese artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>
> You have the wrong end of the stick.
> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the
> cheap, royalty free, computer disks.

"non-computer disks"?

Ok, could you please explain what you mean by non computer disks?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>> surprise you.
>
> found 'em:
>
> Jury Instructions found here:
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>
>
> And the debate over it:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>
>
> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
> owner's exclusive copyright."
>
> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
> Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive.
> It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger
> internet or to who.
>
> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
> really has driven over a cliff.
>
>



This case against Jeffery Howell was against him
sharing over the internet. Howell was wrong.
In the RIAA's case the bring up sharing with his
wife and making your own copies for your own use
and state that they believe that they they are
also illegal but only sue him for what they know
they can win.
Howell was definitely wrong. But if you look at
the rest of the statements you can see where the
RIAA is heading.
Look at the light that the Motley fool sheds an
the recording industry.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/01/02/were-all-thieves-to-the-riaa.aspx
caver1
 
Darth Chaos wrote:
>
> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.

You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song or
program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may legally access
this content only under the terms of a contract willingly entered between
you and the creator (or his agent).
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.
>> The RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to
>> mp3s on his computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share
>> folder.
>
> ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)
>
> Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's
> the Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court.
> What I think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a
> link to that here:
>
> http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html
>
> The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not
> really about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the
> world those songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with
> KaZaA, I think he's toast.



I agree that I used the wrong point to insert
transcript. I was thinking of all legal papers
filed as part of the case. Once the trial is over
then the briefs are part of the transcript.
Yes Howell is toast. But as I said earlier look at
the whole argument of the RIAA and see where they
are heading.
Plus it has already gone to trail. Aug.24. 2007
RIAA was rewarded Summary judgment against Howell
in Arizona Federal court.
caver1
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Anteaus wrote:
> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>
>
>> That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
>> play them in our local units.
>
> ...although in areas with region-coding, particularly those with a region
> other than one, it creates a situation where the consumer is actually
> better-off downloading a pirate DivX/XViD copy than buying a genuine DVD one.
> Perhaps the Fat Cats have yet to realise that to some extent they are
> creating the piracy problem by way of their own malpractices.
>
> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
> to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
> demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>
>
>


The "Fat Cats" ,as you call them, are litigating a
loosing battle over an industry that will die
unless it changes its business model. But they
would rather fight than change.
caver1
 
HeyBub wrote:
> Darth Chaos wrote:
>> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
>> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
>> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
>> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
>> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
>> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
>> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.
>
> You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.
>
> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song or
> program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may legally access
> this content only under the terms of a contract willingly entered between
> you and the creator (or his agent).
>
>


There is no contract when you buy music or a
movie. There is only law covering what you can and
cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
the fair use rights the law has given.
There are contracts with software but even those
cannot take away certain rights that the law has
granted.
caver1
 
UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

(from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )

January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
Posted by Greg Sandoval

An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
computer.

Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post
columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What
was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and
has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled
consumers.

Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his
story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court
document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal
file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying
group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their
computers.

Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
repeated Fisher's claims.

But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited
by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief
that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and
violate the law.

"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part
of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during
the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about
putting them into a shared folder."

The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's
story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over
again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music
files via peer-to-peer networks.

Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to
testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself,
I suppose we can say he stole a song."

This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a
question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position
of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he
spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and
left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the
call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get
the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days
later.

It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be
quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the
group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
problems.

"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if
you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher
said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a
legal right."

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
claim has ever been made."

In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more
than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably
should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when
someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case
scenarios.

Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?
If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to
explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He
would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
this case.

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
 
Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

* jim fired off this tart reply:

> (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?tag=nefd.top )
>
> January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
> RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
> Posted by Greg Sandoval
>
> An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
> sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
> that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
> computer.

Best not to leap to conclusions, then. Sigh.

--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
 
Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

jim wrote> computers.
>
> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
> as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
> repeated Fisher's claims.
>
Take a deep breath and count to 10--then ask yourself how could this be
enforced?

Rick
 
Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>> surprise you.
>
> found 'em:
>
> Jury Instructions found here:
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>
>
> And the debate over it:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>
>
> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
> owner's exclusive copyright."
>
> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
> Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive.
> It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger
> internet or to who.
>
> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
> really has driven over a cliff.
>
>
How in the world do you think that RIAA could get access to a home net
work? I am guessing that it must have been put on the web. The whole
idea that copying CD's or TV programs for your own use is illegal is a
very rocky road and not likely to be supported by the law.

Rick
 
"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:md2dnX9zXYXMqePaRVnyhQA@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:14:03 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:zvCdnRk9AIsYQODanZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>>> Canada used to but I think they stopped in the last year. Here in the
>>>> US any blank music media or non computer burners, cassette decks, tape
>>>> decks, etc , part of the sale price is a royalty paid to the recording
>>>> industry.
>>>
>>> That is ridiculous...seeing how out of a stack of 50 cds I might use
>>> *one* for actual music...and seeing how if I do, it's songs from
>>> Japanese artist which have absolutely nothing to do with the RIAA.
>>
>> You have the wrong end of the stick.
>> The royalties are added to non computer disks, its the same in the UK.
>> This is why audio recorders were chipped to allow users to buy the
>> cheap, royalty free, computer disks.
>
> "non-computer disks"?
>
> Ok, could you please explain what you mean by non computer disks?

Recordables with the royalty paid on them and with the tag need to make them
work in audio recorders.
Un-chipped (un-hacked) audio recorders would only work with the tagged
disks.
Do you live a sheltered life or are you just a kid?
 
HeyBub wrote:

> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song
> or program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may
> legally access this content only under the terms of a contract
> willingly entered between you and the creator (or his agent).

You can't equate songs with programs as the laws pertaining to them are
different.

Just because you don't own the rights to the song (which means
collecting royalties) doesn't mean you don't own that particular copy of
the song. And you are free to do whatever you want with that song as
long as if falls under Fair Use. And that certainly includes ripping an
MP3 off a CD to put on your iPod.
 

Similar threads

allheart55 (Cindy E)
Is It Illegal To Use An App To Track Your Kid, Spouse, Or Employee?
Replies
2
Views
834
Digerati
Digerati
J
OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
2K
The Ghost In The Machine
T
J
OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
jim
J
J
UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....
2
Replies
21
Views
199
jim
J
J
UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....
2
Replies
21
Views
212
jim
J
Back
Top