"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a

>willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction.

 

Ideally, but when it's a transaction between a huge corporation and an

individual, the corporation unilaterally lays down the conditions. The

consumers only choice is not to buy. It's *not* a level playing field.

 

--

Tim Slattery

MS MVP(Shell/User)

Slattery_T@bls.gov

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Tim Slattery wrote:

> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> The US operates under the rule of contract: that is, a willing buyer and a

>> willing seller agreeing to terms of a transaction.

>

> Ideally, but when it's a transaction between a huge corporation and an

> individual, the corporation unilaterally lays down the conditions. The

> consumers only choice is not to buy. It's *not* a level playing field.

>

 

 

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200text.htm

caver1

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

 

"Beamguy" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in

news:ZD6fj.11867$tK5.8119@trndny03:

> This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet

> had time to update their website. They go into more detail elsewhere,

> but here it is from straight from their webpages...

>

> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

>

> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?

>

> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD

> for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they

> bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and

> downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of

> compensation for their work.

 

WRONG !!!! Very few recording artists get a large cut of CD sales. 95% of

profits from CD sales go to the record comapnies.

 

> When record companies are deprived of

> critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists

> from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the

> music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all

> benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next

> generation of talent.

 

Now what's REALLY bad for the record companies is the fact that they have

not changed their business model in 70 years. Times change and technology

changes, everything changes and companies have to change as well to keep

up with it.

 

Here's what I think the music companies should do.....sell direct. Come

on, it cost < $1 to make each CD, so why do we pay so much ?

Distribution. Everyone along the way makes a buck. It DOESN"T go to the

artists.

 

Why they don't sell direct I don't know. It makes a lot of sense. The

record companies themselves would make more money as thay could actually

charge more per CD selling direct retail instead of to high quantity

distributors, who then sell to smaller qty distributors, until it reaches

the stores.

 

Here's what I can see.....

 

A (or several) giant warehouses. All fully automated. A person would

place an order on their website for whatever CD's they want, the order

would be forwarded to the packaging area, the CD(s) would be

automatically picked, and packed, wrapped up, posted (or whatever

shipping method) and then loaded on a truck to go to whatever shipping

depot was chosen.

 

Almost no human intervention needed once everything is set up and running

properly.

 

The company could get $5 for each CD, probably 2 to 3 times the amount as

compared to selling in large quantity to other distributors.

 

Other companies do this, why can't they ? Because they refuse to.

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

 

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski

<me@privacy.net>

wrote

on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000

<5u4im5F1f7vppU1@mid.individual.net>:

> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>> (from

>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)

>>

>>

>> "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

>> intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal

>> for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.

>>

>> As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a

>> Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,

>> industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto

>> one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

>>

> Complete hogwash.

>

 

No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate

ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a

high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

 

Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.

 

However, the copying of the disc could be construed as

a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical

copies being generally impossible. It really depends on

how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably

screwed up anyway.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).

(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

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

 

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:%234NrL%23gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Gilgamesh wrote:

>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>> (from

>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)

>>>

>>>

>>> "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 :-( )

>>

>>> Just thought you'd like to know....

>>>

>>> jim

>>>

>>

>>

>

>

> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to

> get around the law.

> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie

> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good

> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is

> a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.

> Sounds like greed to me.

> caver1

 

I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance

called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.

To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is

this it?

 

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]

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

 

Martha Adams wrote:

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:%234NrL%23gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Gilgamesh wrote:

>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

>>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>>> (from

>>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "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 :-( )

>>>

>>>> Just thought you'd like to know....

>>>>

>>>> jim

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to

>> get around the law.

>> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie

>> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good

>> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is

>> a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.

>> Sounds like greed to me.

>> caver1

>

> I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance

> called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.

> To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is

> this it?

>

> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]

>

>

 

 

 

That's true. Its a real nuisance to the RIAA.

But even probable cause only gives the right to

obtain a warrant or uder the right circumstances

to do a search. It does not give the right to find

someone guilty in its own right.

caver1

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

 

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski

> <me@privacy.net>

> wrote

> on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000

> <5u4im5F1f7vppU1@mid.individual.net>:

>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>> (from

>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)

>>>

>>>

>>> "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

>>> intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal

>>> for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.

>>>

>>> As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a

>>> Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,

>>> industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto

>>> one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

>>>

>> Complete hogwash.

>>

>

> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate

> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a

> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

>

> Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.

>

> However, the copying of the disc could be construed as

> a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical

> copies being generally impossible. It really depends on

> how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably

> screwed up anyway.

>

 

 

 

They are not suing him for the copies. Probably

because they couldn't win that one.

He is being sued for sharing which under those

circumstances could be wrong.

I said could be because he hasn't been found

guilty yet.

But just because you could have or might have is

not did.

They should still have to prove that he did.

The butler did it. But you still have to prove

that he did to convict him. Proving that he could

have is not good enough.

caver1

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

 

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:#4NrL#gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Gilgamesh wrote:

>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message

>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>> (from

>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)

>>>

>>>

>>> "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 :-( )

>>

>>> Just thought you'd like to know....

>>>

>>> jim

>>>

>>

>>

>

>

> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to get

> around the law.

> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie

> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good

> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is a

> pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.

> Sounds like greed to me.

> caver1

 

 

I wonder if he is a member of the NRA. I wonder how that rationale would go

with guns. "You cannot know ahead of time id the person buying a gun is a

murderer or no. So then there should be no legal way to buy guns". Hmm,

I can't see that flying well :-) Actually if you want to stop music piracy

just make the sale of music itself a felony!

 

--

Mark R. Cusumano

Skype Name: mark.cusumano

Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com

"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.

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

On Jan 3, 8:02 am, "Tom Lake" <toml_12...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam.no...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message

>

> news:d7KdnR9tCdCMROHanZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>

> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:38:51 -0500, jim wrote:

>

> > <snip>

>

> >> Just thought you'd like to know....

>

> > I wonder how much they like me stripping region coding and CSS encryption

> > from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the

> > physical DVDs. =)

>

> Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who

> posts all over the place. 8^)

>

> Tom Lake

 

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.

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

 

In article <ZD6fj.11867$tK5.8119@trndny03>,

"Beamguy" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:

> This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet had time

> to update their website. They go into more detail

> elsewhere, but here it is from straight from their webpages...

>

> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php

>

> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?

>

> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for

> their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music

> they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading

> music illegally rob the people who created that music

> of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of

> critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop

> artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the

> music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well.

> We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next

> generation of talent.

 

This sentence make me laugh--

"But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading

> music illegally rob the people who created that music

> of compensation for their work."

 

The record labels are not creators. The true creators are the artists,

and they normally get very little from the price, that the person who

buys the DC, pays. Does anyone know what the percentage breakdown of how

the revenue made from sale of a record, is distributed. I'll bet that

the artist gets no more than 5% tops and that get eaten up expenses that

charged to the artist. It's only the superstar artists who actually make

any money on sales of records.

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

 

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message

news:uukv45-0m8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate

> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a

> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

 

And from the Judge in the Jammie Thomas case, simply making the songs

*available* - even if nobody downloaded any - is illegal.

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

 

bb wrote:

> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

> message news:uukv45-0m8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

>> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate

>> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a

>> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

>

> And from the Judge in the Jammie Thomas case, simply making the songs

> *available* - even if nobody downloaded any - is illegal.

>

 

 

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.

Imagine that sharing with his wife. I don't

understand I always charge my wife to listen to my

music. How else do you think I get my drinking money?

The nerve of the man.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

caver1

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.

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/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-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/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-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