It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year?

[www.eff.org]

---

Aloha, Ken


“I have developed significant attachments to several members even though I wouldn't recognize them if I sat next to one on a park bench. I'm often tempted when in an airport to walk around, hollering "The Løpe", to see if anyone other than the Homeland Security people will acknowledge me. ” - The Løpe

Oh no. Now I will have to turn myself in to the authorities.

So I should buy no more CDs then.

Soon they will say that just because I have paid for a song and downloaded it from iTunes, that doesn't mean I can just listen to it anytime I want.

I will, of course, need to call the RIAA's toll free number and give them the title and artist and wait on hold for a few minutes while they verify my purchase. Then, they will authorize me to listen to the song as many times as I want in a 10 minute period.

I'm surprised the lobbyists haven't slipped a "Piracy recovery tax" into the law yet. We can pay one percent of our income every year to the record companies to keep them from going under due to the piracy.

The RIAA isn't going to be happy until they legislate themselves right out of existence.

People will stop buying CDs and buy online. Hacksters will be busy making utilities to allow people to use their downloaded music as they want.

The RIAA will not win. Their business model is dead.

---

I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

"Our product is sh!tty! What'll we do? Stop people from getting better product elsewhere!"

---

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Western Massachusetts

They can bite my shiny metal a$$.

That's right, I'm a robot.

In Europe (AFAIK) there is a surcharge on burners and blanks, but the movie and music industries leave you alone.

Any out there verify? The added cost to a burner is like $10-15 US was what i heard. I'd do that if I knew they could never hassle me.

Just another reason to use allofmp3.com

@#$%& the RIAA. I'm sick to goddamn death of their whining.

The RIAA are dinasaurs. This makes people want to pirate music even more.

"Sure you bought that fork and you own it, but that doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want with it!"

---

I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to Hell? -Homer.

This is BS alarmist crap from tone deaf nerds who can't make their own music and don't want anyone to profit from theirs.

First of all, the RIAA can do whatever it wants with it's copyrighted material. 2nd of all, what they are worried about, and quite rightly so, is people selling used iPods on ebay, loaded with bootlegged mp3s and charging extra for it, yet not paying the performers. songwriters or labels one red cent. Yet the bootleggers make money from it.

Ok? It's only music. If you don't like it, stop buying and stop listening.

---

"2nd of all, what they are worried about, and quite rightly so, is people selling used iPods on ebay, loaded with bootlegged mp3s and charging extra for it, yet not paying the performers."

If that's what they are trying to stop then they need to go after those people.


"Ok? It's only music. If you don't like it, stop buying and stop listening."

It's not only music. It's only the RIAA. The RIAA is not synonymous with music.

I don't think this is alarmist crap at all. I think it's called individual rights and ours are getting trampled all over.

It's called fair use. And it's called hypocritical bull@#$%&. And it's called greed.

Brought to you by the same organization that saw no need to change with the times. Just imagine if the RIAA would have seen the value in downloadable music, price sensibly about the same time Napster went online. Imagine if they could have convinced the masses it made sense to spend 25¢ a song.

They didn't see the economics of that. They had their eyes fixed on $20 CDs and nothing else.

Now they want to sue their customers into compliance. That's a great way to build brand loyalty.

I may not be a musician but you have to be blind to place your future into the RIAA's hands. You really think they are protecting the musicians? They are protecting their own
a$$.

---

I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2006 07:45PM by MacArtist.

brofoski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "2nd of all, what they are worried about, and
> quite rightly so, is people selling used iPods on
> ebay, loaded with bootlegged mp3s and charging
> extra for it, yet not paying the performers."
>
> If that's what they are trying to stop then they
> need to go after those people.
>
>
> "Ok? It's only music. If you don't like it, stop
> buying and stop listening."
>
> It's not only music. It's only the RIAA. The
> RIAA is not synonymous with music.

Unfortunately, this may be the only way to stop it. Stop copying to iPod as fair use.
As for the RIAA, it may not be perfect, but what chance would any performer or artist or songwriter or producer or musician have to get paid in any way without organizations such as NARAS and the RIAA and the various unions.

---

The copyright laws are no different for the individual or the organization. The organization has convinced you that they are working for you when in fact, you are working for them.

Maybe it's time for the musicians to market themselves? What useful purpose does the RIAA serve today? Back in the day, when all you had was exposure in the record store or airtime on the radio station; they were there to bribe your way onto the shelves and onto the top 40. Maybe if musicians were free to cut their own deals, there would be more money going into the artists pockets.

Have they given you specific figures of how much of the money raised by suing P to P file sharers has actually been returned to the artists? No? That's what I thought.

Even as powerful as the RIAA thinks they are; they are not going to be able to fight against technology. They need to find a way to work with it. That does not include treating your customers like criminals.

---

I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

I think the iPod is the best thing to happen to the music industry in a long time. The iPod allows a listener to hear songs they like over and over, until they are tired of it, and then they move on to new music. It has created a higher demand for new music. The RIAA might be good for some things, but they are only hurting themselves with this issue.
They are trying to put limits on technology that is not theirs. If it is decided that ripping is illegal, and the RIAA stops there, then fine. But they won't. They will try to prevent hardware manufactures from building equipment that can rip CDs. CD and DVD technology is not exclusive to the RIAA, but they try to control it like it is. If they want to dictate technology, then they need to invent their own. There are plenty of artists finding new ways to profit from music, and the RIAA needs to find new ways too.

Who listens to the RIAA?

---

JoeM

work for a major label (RIAA) make $10-$30k per song.

work for an indie (non RIAA) and you can get as little as $1k. Considering I'm not doing a song a day or even a week, which one do you think I want to be dealing with?

---

G'man, where'd you come up with that party l.o.s.?

Patty Smyth - Scandal 'member them? How aptly named.
The whole band profited $50k from "Goodbye to You". The biggest selling EP in Columbia history up to that point, anyway. That was the 80's not the thieving Roulette 50's and 60's.
As I remember from my days in the biz, Columbia was what one would call a major label.

F'in' thieves are back at payola again, oh no, I'm sorry - "independent promotion".
Kind of like DC lobbies.

Then, how many times and how many labels have milked their back catalogs based on 30 year old contracts with the artists. Many of whom still haven't released decent versions
(IE: not EQ'd LP source tapes) despite repeated attempts. So concerned were they back in the day that many masters are unmarked or misplaced etc.
That's "Fair Use".

If they'd have been smart, they'd have never moved to digital media. Vinyl sounds better anyway as does tape. But dig is the only thing on the shelf, for the most part.

But vinyl was costing them a buck a piece and they were using inferior quality vinyl.
CDs, what maybe .50¢ ?

30000 released a year these days. When I was calling for my last disc, about 4 years ago, the PD at some NE college station told me, on average, they received 2500 new CDs each month, in the pop genre (his words, everything other than jazz and classical.

Let's say half are indy and half are labeled, though I'd bet the labeled number is higher.
On average, 30 are actually profitable as stand-alone media. Not the tour proceeds or other elements. Face it, major labels are f'in' clueless.

I'm frankly shocked that Columbia signed Brandi Carlile. What the heck were they thinking? Sign someone with actual talent?

greedy sobs

---

!#$@@$#!

If there are spelling issues, please pardon, Owen the cat is sitting on my keyboard.

I agree with the RIAA!

They are here to protect the artist, the one without a voice. The artist is the one who is penalized by people who copy their music illegally and use it in ways that otherwise detract from overall sales. Who ever is rips a CD to listen to the music on an iPod is clearly stealing. A CD was never intended to be copied by the general public. This is complete BS, why are you still reading this garbage. The RIAA is full of shiznit.

---

The RIAA represents accountants, not musicians.

I'm surprised they haven't stopped the sale of used CDs. I
buy used CDs and songs from ITMS. There used to be a radio
station in Charlotte that had an Album hour at midnight. You
could record at will. The RIAA never said a word until things
went digital. I used to buy a ton of vinyl and CDs but not
anymore. Too much great free music at Garageband.com and
cheap used CDs.

---

Grateful11

A used CD was paid for at least once. There is no proof that in a loaded ipod sold on ebay or even at a store, that a single one of those mp3s was paid for, yet the person selling it is making money. You get the gist of it?

Instead of blaming the RIAA why not blame the small time crooks who are making this action necessary? The RIAA may not directly represent me, but what they do helps me get paid.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2006 11:26PM by Guitarman.

"Instead of blaming the RIAA why not blame the small time crooks who are making this action necessary? The RIAA may not directly represent me, but what they do helps me get paid."

I guess if you use that logic, you should be blaming terrorists for the mess in Iraq and not the Bush administration.

...and this action is not necessary. If they want to stop people from selling used ipods with music on it, then they need to bust those people.

I'm so happy to see that a certain musician here is concerned primarily about making as much $$$ as opposed to having some integrity and prefers to be the bootstrap boy of the RIAA. It's this kind of outlook that has ripped the heart out of music and it's sickening.

I am curious though about this immaculate conception that gives us these magical mp3's that just appear on iPods without being paid for EVER. I'm just guessing but I'd imagine someone somewhere paid for it at some point 99.999% of the time. So, the whole used cd argument doesn't fly either.

I'm guessing no one should be able to burn tracks to a cd by the same logic they are using for the iPod. You aren't supposed to be able to sell burned cd's on ebay and that's fair. Crack on the people pirating. But apply that same determination to the iPod thing as well. Don't make up some BS about it.

Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A used CD was paid for at least once. There is no
> proof that in a loaded ipod sold on ebay or even
> at a store, that a single one of those mp3s was
> paid for, yet the person selling it is making
> money. You get the gist of it?
>
> Instead of blaming the RIAA why not blame the
> small time crooks who are making this action
> necessary? The RIAA may not directly represent me,
> but what they do helps me get paid.
>
Yes I get the gist of the whole thing. The problem is the
RIAA isn't going to be happy until they can have total
control of what you can do with your music. The key words
there is small time crooks. Why doesn't law enforcement go
after hardened repeat offenders of more serious crimes?
Just look at the time and money wasted on dragging that
one woman through the courts when she is probably innocent.
What person in their right mind would go through that much
money and time if they were guilty of such a minor, to some
majors to others, offense? Personally I wasn't aware that
people were selling iPods full of music. When I bought a
9600 some years back it came to me loaded with some kind of
music. The guy emails me and says that he thought I might
like it. I didn't want that crap on my computer. It
wasn't my music to listen to anyway. He made no mention of
it being loaded on there on the auction description. If you
think pir@cy of American music is bad go to a local flea
market and take a look at the Latin/Mexican music b00tlegs.
At the one near me you're likely to find at least 6 people
selling clearly b00tleged music CDs. Talk about an easy bust.
You'll probably see least 3 people selling b00tleg DVDs. I
mispelled those on purpose because big brother might
be watching every word I type in.

Do you have a VCR or DVR?

---

Grateful11

Guitarman Wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this may be the only way to stop
> it. Stop copying to iPod as fair use.
> As for the RIAA, it may not be perfect, but what
> chance would any performer or artist or songwriter
> or producer or musician have to get paid in any
> way without organizations such as NARAS and the
> RIAA and the various unions.
>
>
I am a member of NARAS and in the recording business as an engineer, producer and musician. The RIAA once had some worth- back in the '50s, maybe- but today it has been reduced to being the lobbying arm of the 4 multinational conglomerates that control 80% of the major musuic releases. I do not agree with their tactics or philosophy, and their arrogant, belligerant attitude has obscured what are some real issues that need to be dealt with regarding digital distribution. Their heads are in the sand.

Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> work for a major label (RIAA) make $10-$30k per
> song.
>
> work for an indie (non RIAA) and you can get as
> little as $1k. Considering I'm not doing a song a
> day or even a week, which one do you think I want
> to be dealing with?
>
>


Guitarman,

You're confusing cause and effect. Of course you might make more with an RIAA affiliated major label, but that's because (if you're VERY lucky) the label is working the record and the major has access to promotional avenues that are (for the moment) traditionally closed to indies. But this is in no way a guarantee, nor is it because of the RIAA affiliation (unless you are a known name artist already).

But this is changing, and the fact that the RIAA refuses to acknowledge the changes in the market and the model will work only to the detriment of their affiliates in the long run.

I know whereof I speak- I was part of Personics in the early '90s and have first hand knowledge of the fact that the RIAA/ "traditional" record company lobby will NOT allow any alternative distribution model to flourish, even if it is fully and properly licensed (Personics was the largest licensor of recorded music at that time), unless THEY fully own and control it.

[www.betagroupllc.com]

[www.dailyping.com]

Also, your use of the term "work for a major (RIAA) label" is telling; although I know you didn't necessarily mean it this way, when you do work for a major label you are indeed *working for the label.* That's my point. The RIAA works for the label, not the artist.

Grateful11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The RIAA never said a word
> until things
> went digital.

Not true.

They managed to implement a tax on blank cassettes in the late '80s, supposedly to cover losses from people taping their own LP's.

I'm still wondering where my check is.

(vikm) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crack on the
> people pirating. But apply that same determination
> to the iPod thing as well. Don't make up some BS
> about it.


Exactly right. Stop turning your customers into crminals.

Joey Cupcakes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grateful11 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The RIAA never said a word
> > until things
> > went digital.
>
> Not true.
>
> They managed to implement a tax on blank cassettes
> in the late '80s, supposedly to cover losses from
> people taping their own LP's.
>
> I'm still wondering where my check is.
>
I was recording cassettes of my own albums back then
because the prerecorded cassettes sucked. I don't remember
the cost going up significantly at any one point in time.
So you're saying it was illegal to make a cassette copy of
the LP I bought back then when I wasn't actually buying the
LP but a license to listen to it?

---

Grateful11

That was the RIAA's contention, yes.

The tax was not a significant amount, but it was there.

Similar to the "music CD-Rs"- you know, the "technical innovation" that allows your stand-alone Phillips CD Audio recorder to record. There's a subcode in those discs that the recorder must see before it will function. Other than that they are identical to standard computer data CDR-Rs, but part of the extra revenue that is generated from the sale of those discs goes to the RIAA.

Obviously there was no "code" that could be put on cassettes (they tried... how they tried...) so the tax was spread across all blank tape sales in the US, even if you owned a recording studio.