Comments on: Still crazy after all these years

Still crazy after all these years

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:12:29 -0800

The RIAA would like to remind you that copying purchased music to your iPod is illegal without first gaining permission from the copyright holder. Thank you.

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:16:38 -0800

Pop will eat itself...

By: MillMan

MillMan — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:17:47 -0800

The RIAA becomes less relevant with each passing day.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:17:58 -0800

Nevermind that until now, the RIAA has routinely agreed that copying CDs for personal use, including on an iPod, is fair use. In fact the RIAA website still says that.

By: teece

teece — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:18:06 -0800

Says the RIAA. I'm pretty sure they are wrong. Of course, that doesn't stop them from buying legislators, and getting it explicitly made that way. Bought and paid for law, it's grand.

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:20:04 -0800

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. Well someone's gonna get bitten in the ass.

By: Dreamghost

Dreamghost — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:20:31 -0800

Unlike the war on christmas. The War on Fair Use is very real. Die. Dinosaur. Die.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:21:07 -0800

The War on Natural Law

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:21:21 -0800

OK, just to kind of set things up here: the RIAA does not have the authority to pre-emptively declare what the law is in this way. Their declaration that "XYZ is not a fair use of our copyrighted material" holds no water at all -- that's a decision for a judge to make. However, they are entirely within their right to make this be the case in the future. Fair use (and copyright overall, in fact) is just an initial allocation of rights; parties are free to negotiate or surrender some of those rights via licenses. Furthermore, given some recent federal court decisions (e.g. ProCD v. Zeitenberg) it appears valid to set forth terms in a blanket shrinkwrap license. Put these two together, and any record company could make it illegal, via binding contract, for you to rip music in any way not specifically authorized by their terms. Left as a discussion to the reader is why this is supposed to appeal to their customers. My guess is, it's legal grandstanding they didn't figure anyone outside of the Copyright Office would actually ever read.

By: teece

teece — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:22:13 -0800

Oh, and where they're going with this is obvious. On the next iteration of DRM CDs (à la the Sony root kit CDs), the RIAA will explicitly say you don't have the permission to rip the CD. You must buy a separate copy for your iPod. They're busy bribing legislators to get ripping labeled as non-fair-use, so they can make you pay twice. It's time some legislators remember the point of copyright is the enrichment of society, not the enrichment of the RIAA.

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:22:59 -0800

By the way, you'll notice at the bottom of the page here it says All posts are © their original authors. If any of you just made a cached copy of this sentence on your hard drive, you're in deep shit. I will request IPs from Matt shortly. I'm gonna take you fuckers down.

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:24:27 -0800

Zeidenberg, sorry. 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:26:52 -0800

teece: They're busy bribing legislators to get ripping labeled as non-fair-use, so they can make you pay twice. Traditionally, determine of fair use is the province of the judiciary, though who's to say with all the buying of copyright legislation that's been going on in the past 7 years. Much easier to go the blanket-contract route I discribed above, though. That's already available, no bribing required.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:28:03 -0800

We should probably close this barn door. Say, has anyone seen my cows?

By: public

public — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:29:15 -0800

Why don't they just switch to releasing stuff on DVD-A ( ;) PotEoA ) can't they just sue the crap out of anyone who makes software which circumvents the "encryption" on it under the DMCA then? It's not like DVD players cost that much more to produce than CD now is it?

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:30:26 -0800

Hasn't someone put a sword through the RIAA's heart yet? Oh yeah, they have none, just a black money sucking hole where a heart might be. Oh well, they can go and suck my bitrate. If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model.

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:10 -0800

Why would you buy music from the big 5 anyway, unless it's Bloc Party (why the fuck did they sign to Atlantic?)

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:18 -0800

If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model. Sadly, this applies to SO much of America's economy right now...

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:20 -0800

Why the wink? ;)

By: Robot Johnny

Robot Johnny — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:21 -0800

I guess I'm going to have to buy two copies of anything from iTunes now -- one for my computer, and a second copy for my iPod.

By: teece

teece — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:35 -0800

Much easier to go the blanket-contract route I discribed above, though. That's already available, no bribing required. Yup, you're right, I had forgotten about that. Although I do find the idea that purchasing a CD and opening counts as a binding contract, but that seems to be the way it is. That is where they are going -- CDs with a EULA, stating no ripping allowed (or if it is allowed, only with their supplied DRM program).

By: public

public — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:32:54 -0800

No reason in particular...

By: teece

teece — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:33:06 -0800

Damnit hit the wrong button: Although I do find the idea that purchasing a CD and opening it counts as a binding contract absurd.

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:33:55 -0800

Can a lawyer tell us how ludicrious a EULA would have to be before it couldn't be enforced? "By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary" and so on.

By: public

public — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:36:52 -0800

Well if the EULA constitutes an illegal contract then you have no obligation to abide by it. I'm not entirely sure what it takes for a contract like that to be deemed illegal though.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:37:23 -0800

Yeah, I'll take that under advisement.

By: iamck

iamck — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:37:36 -0800

So is singing songs illegal yet?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:38:26 -0800

Most cell phones are not legally the property of the folks who carry them; you only have purchased a license to use the phone. If you screw with its innards, you are in violation of that contract. Extrapolating the trend forward...

By: public

public — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:38:39 -0800

From some random PDF I found ...contracts can be considered unenforceable if they are so unfair, harsh and oppressive that they can be considered unconscionable. Their emphasis

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:40:16 -0800

Pretty straightforward; Apple is just about making more money from iPods than Macs these days... RIAA's going ~~hheeeyy, that's OUR money on the table~~ I remember how cool I thought ripping was when I first discovered the tools 10 years ago... little did I know Apple would take it to the next level lo these past 5 years.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:41:21 -0800

Great catch, monju_bosatsu! DDraconian Measures Criminalize All Hah!

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:41:41 -0800

Whoops, should've had one D.

By: public

public — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:41:42 -0800

A more detailed look at what might make a contract unenforceable Might be relevant, it's pretty interesting reading anyway.

By: kosher_jenny

kosher_jenny — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:47:56 -0800

RIAA finds another way to screw over their legitimate customers, film at 11. If you have to pass bad legislation to keep your business model plausible then perhaps you need to adjust your business model. Too true. Of course, as long as it's so easy for them to buy legislators our government will be keeping them afloat.

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:48:31 -0800

Can a lawyer tell us how ludicrious a EULA would have to be before it couldn't be enforced? "By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary" and so on. IANAL(yet), but the short answer is, it varies by state. The primary doctrine you'd be appealing to is unconscionability and it's a pretty high bar in most states. The paradigmatic case is one where a rent-to-own place stated that all items rented by a single customer could be seized if there was an outstanding balance on any of them (Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture). The much more common response by the judge is "if you don't like the terms, don't enter the contract." Also of potential value is the doctrine of copyright misuse, which is very rarely applied, in part because of the remedy: the copyright is totally unenforceable -- against anyone -- until the "defects" in behavior are corrected. In the digital era... talk about barn doors and cows. Why they don't start applying copyright misuse with a scaled-back remedy, I don't know.

By: mds35

mds35 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:50:18 -0800

FUCK THE PMRC!!!! Oops. Sorry. Wrong rally!

By: davejay

davejay — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:53:04 -0800

Dersins wins, and in the first post to boot.

By: ab3

ab3 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:59:45 -0800

Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use... Sounds wrong to me. Sounds like a textbook illustration of the concepts of waiver & estoppal, which would dictate the reverse - that when permission is routinely granted (i.e., enforcement is waived), the rights holder is eventually estopped from selectively enforcing the right. Then again, I'm a bit rusty... any thoughts from other lawyers?

By: ab3

ab3 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:04:08 -0800

So is singing songs illegal yet? yes, iamck, yes it is. (also confirmed at snopes.)

By: 517

517 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:04:14 -0800

Does this mean that we don't have to pretend that Russel Simmons is cool anymore?

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:16:33 -0800

(also confirmed at snopes.) Wow! This law sucks so much there's a Snopes page because people can't believe it. Brilliant.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:18:19 -0800

This is a serious question, to which I need a serious answer. Why should I even listen to new popular music? I mean, I have Biob Dylan, I have the Beatles. But I also have Mozart and Beethoven and Bach and Wagner and Gilbert & Sullivan. I have 800 years of Western music to listen to -- and literally two months of twenty-four/seven listening all legally acquired on my hard drive. That's six months if I listen eight hours a day, and frankly, I like to repeat old favs. I don't have the time to do justice to what I already have. Why do I need new music? Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great, but I can wait while everyone else separates that wheat from the avalanche of chaff, and listen to Bix Beiderbecke and Arlo Guthrie and John Dunstable now. Why buy new music? Seriously, why?

By: Jairus

Jairus — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:22:29 -0800

Why should I even listen to new popular music? Why buy new music? Seriously, why? These are two different questions. You should buy new music to support the artists who make new music, and don't enjoy the benefits of popularity. I can't think of a compelling reason to listen to new popular music, though.

By: drstein

drstein — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:28:13 -0800

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:28:33 -0800

Why should I even listen to new popular music? Because you need to hear all about my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My lovely lady lumps.

By: bcveen

bcveen — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:31:35 -0800

By opening this package you surrender your home for use as a colobus monkey sanctuary ... Now I wish I had musical talent, just so I could put that on a CD case and convert the entire nation to a giant monkey haven.

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:31:40 -0800

Why do I need new music? Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great YOUANSWEREDYOUROWNQUESTION

By: deusdiabolus

deusdiabolus — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:35:03 -0800

Fine, you tell that to Karl Lagerfeld.

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:39:14 -0800

Why should I even listen to new popular music? ... I can't think of a compelling reason to listen to new popular music, though. First of all, the same major labels that produce Beyonce own most of the back-catalogs for the acts you do like, so you'll probably still support the RIAA even if you only buy the classics. Moreover, far be it for me to suggest you buy Beyonce albums, but there is an argument for action other than "this all pisses me off so I'll just boycott." The thing is, there will be people who like popular music: tomorrow's classics are being made today. If you don't dig them, that's an aesthetic decision that I would not try to sway. But there's a value in the propagation and evolution of music as an art, regardless of what you particularly think of any specific song or genre. And the thing is, this crackdown by the RIAA has the potential to really impact that evolution. What if grandmaster flash wasn't able to scratch his records? Or if that doesn't grab you, what if record prices (due to DRM-enabled monopolies) were so high that Ella Fitzgerald couldn't find any jazz to sing along to and develop the scat technique? And on and on. In the end I think art can be protected by copyright yet still continue to evolve because copyright has some play in the joints. Fair use is one example, and the first sale doctrine is another. When DRM becomes perfect, future artists will essentially become beholden to the terms laid down by present artists (or more precisely, the corporations who buy up their copyrights). Of course we would continue to have art, but it's legitimate to question the power structure produced by this situation, in ways other than personal withdrawal.

By: rkent

rkent — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:43:02 -0800

And this will affect countries outside of the US.. how? Sure, Interpol and all of that nonsense, but the way I see it, the more restrictive our stupid copyright laws get here, the more the activity flourishes overseas. We're legislating ourselves out of our world position. Sort of, but check out the Berne Convention -- copyright is pretty standard throughout the world (in fact, Europe implemented "life + 50" before the U.S. did). And most developed countries have strong contract law. However, some of the particular doctrines that really strengthen corporate bargaining position, like ProCD that I mentioned earlier, do not have an effect outside the U.S.; that much is true. I would love to see the E.U. come out differently on that issue.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:48:10 -0800

"Why would you buy music from the big 5 anyway, unless it's Bloc Party (why the fuck did they sign to Atlantic?)" Why would you buy an album from Bloc Party?

By: Doorstop

Doorstop — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:50:08 -0800

all i gotta say is, "Ahoy ye scallawogs, YAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!"

By: willnot

willnot — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:50:52 -0800

there is an argument for action other than "this all pisses me off so I'll just boycott." No, boycott is exactly the right thing to do. Let the label system die. Production is increasingly cheaper and more accessible, the internet is a vastly superior distribution mechanism, webs of trust will be better at driving popularity, and even if that never pans out, niche is better than broad anyway. That way everybody gets exactly what they like instead of most people getting something close to what they like. Kill the labels. Make them die as soon as possible. If anybody truly likes music at all, buying a record from a band that is on an RIAA member label is like slitting your own throat. Slit theirs, not yours.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:18:21 -0800

Somebody should make a form email generator to send to bands that says something like "I dig your music and really wanted to buy your latest album, but I can't because your record label is a member of the RIAA."

By: adamrice

adamrice — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:19:18 -0800

So what the RIAA is telling me is that I might as well just download everything via bittorrent after all!

By: troybob

troybob — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:19:23 -0800

yeah, they should...because it's not like artists aren't getting screwed over enough by their record companies...we should stick it to them as well

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:20:47 -0800

Welcome to Australia, where this is the law. We don't have "fair use" rights to make back-up or other copies of CDs. It's the law. In fact, until recently when the Australian iTunes music store opened, there were very limited uses of iPods here. Personally I believe they can try and enforce this if they want. It's just a matter of them putting a 2" x 3" sticker on the front and back of every CD case that says THIS MAY NOT BE COPIED TO YOUR iPOD and see how their profits improve. . .

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:33:49 -0800

The solution is simple -- don't buy CDs. Or anything that crapfest of an industry produces.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:36:16 -0800

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome writes "Why do I need new music?

"Admittedly, some small fraction of the new stuff will be great

"YOUANSWEREDYOUROWNQUESTION" That's a bit like eating a pile of crap in the odd chance that there might be lobster in it, no?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:38:59 -0800

Dear RIAA, Suck it, haters. Yrs trly, loq

By: Protocols of the Elders of Awesome

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:42:45 -0800

clevershark: no.

By: Artw

Artw — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:43:18 -0800

That's a bit like eating a pile of crap in the odd chance that there might be lobster in it, no? Theres these things like word of mouth, reviews, etc... which help a little.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:44:17 -0800

I guess I'm going to have to buy two copies of anything from iTunes now -- one for my computer, and a second copy for my iPod. I guess I'm going to have to continue what I've been doing, which is buying normal CDs and ripping them for use on my iPod, and downloading copy-protected CDs instead of supporting their right to preemptively treat me like a criminal. I'd encourage everyone to do the same; they can't sue every single one of us, and a law is nothing without effective enforcement.

By: QuietDesperation

QuietDesperation — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800

Now I wish I had musical talent, just so I could put that on a CD case... You're in luck, bc. Restrictions on talent were lifted years ago. You can record a CD without any at all.

By: mike3k

mike3k — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:35:15 -0800

Buy music from indie & unsigned bands. CD Baby has a great selection and you're not supporting the big labels when you buy from them.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:37:45 -0800

If any of you just made a cached copy of this sentence on your hard drive, you're in deep shit. I will request IPs from Matt shortly. I'm gonna take you fuckers down. *Clears cache, zeroes HD, jumps out window*

By: any major dude

any major dude — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:41:19 -0800

Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it. - John Lennon

By: raedyn

raedyn — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:41:50 -0800

"Why should I even listen to new popular music?" Because you need to hear all about my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My humps my humps my humps. My lovely lady lumps. - brain_drain *grey matter drips out of ears at the catchy inanity* Another name-appropriate post.

By: my sock puppet account

my sock puppet account — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:48:15 -0800

This would make me want to download and burn as much music as I could if I didn't give up listening to music when the whole industry went to shit in the late '90s.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:48 -0800

...it's not like artists aren't getting screwed over enough by their record companies...we should stick it to them as well I get so sick of hearing about the poor artists! Screwed by the labels, ripped-off by the file-traders. I don't get it. Were Bon Jovi dragged away from their Pizza Hut jobs and forced at gunpoint to record shitty power pop? Did they have no alternatives? I'd say that the thriving independent music scene in YOUR city proves that there ARE alternatives to RIAA labels. I don't think that recording a tune that the industry pushes up the charts entitles anyone to millions of dollars. And I hear you complaining, "what about the millions of dollars that the sales of that tune generate? Who should get that?" My answer is that the consumer should get that... which is to that that if the music industrial complex were decentralized, music wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does. Try to imagine for a moment a world without the RIAA, without entertainment oligarcs that fix prices and bust music fans for sharing music. Musicians will always be able to make money playing for people, no matter ow ubiquitously their recordings are distributed. And Apple is making billions because a buck a song is a reasonable price. It's time for people to take their music back. The RIAA should die, and fast.

By: effwerd

effwerd — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:06:58 -0800

First: Fuck the RIAA. Second: thanks, rkent, for the awesome comments. I just don't understand why these fuckers (the RIAA) would want to be so belligerent toward their customers. What do they gain from this retarded behavior? All they're doing is guaranteeing that I will engage in unlawful behavior even though I've done and will do nothing any reasonable person would consider as such. I buy DRM music and abide by the license. I buy CDs and don't pirate them. I don't use P2P. I use all the music I buy for my own entertainment. Why would they want the law to classify me as a violator? If they hope to get a few extra purchases out of me, well, it ain't gonna happen. I'm not stupid. And though I have no study to demonstrate this, I think my behavior is representative of a large swath of music consumers. The only thing I can conclude of them considering the above is that they are simply assholes. Given that, I repeat: Fuck the RIAA.

By: slatternus

slatternus — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:48:14 -0800

So there were a couple of kids at the bus stop today busking Pearl Jam and Paul Simon. They were getting paid for a public performance of copyrighted material, so I suppose according to the RIAA fuckwads, they're criminals too.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:29:06 -0800

you know, perhaps it is good that they will build a fence along the southern boarder, hell let's build one along the top too. With razor wire and floodlights. They way things are going pretty soon 100% of Americans will be criminals of some sort, might as well just turn the whole friggen country into a jail. Pretty soon there will be 3 types of Americans, the inmates, the guards, and the wardens. (inmates and guards can rotate positions under certain circumstances).

By: konolia

konolia — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:45:33 -0800

Now you know why I make my own music. Seriously. The music industry is a big fat whore that needs to go out of business. Fortunately there are indie labels and there is the internet, and it's only a matter of time.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:52:41 -0800

Can someone explain to me if, and how, this could possibly be enforced, and how is this different from back in the days of yore when I'd make tapes for my Walkman and my car stereo? Nowadays I'm putting songs on my iPod, and I don't see how the RIAA is going to stop me. Seriously, I don't understand what the RIAA's position is. Can someone explain?

By: zarah

zarah — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:56:10 -0800

The music industry is a big fat whore Nah, it's more like an old stingy pimp. Still needs to go out of business in it's present form though, yup.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:46:07 -0800

F_M: HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:27:04 -0800

Yeah, y'know... I know you're being sarcastic, but that whole "COPYING_METHOD_HERE is killing music" is such utter stinking horseshit it's not even funny. Music/art is an ecology. The more music there is - and the more freely it flows - the more music there is. Starving artists, kids and adults and both get to hear and study music they couldn't normally afford. They get to study and analyze that music. They get to learn that music. Then expand upon it. And then write their own. How many people that play any sort of instrument at all started out by playing popular tunes? How many popular, financially successful musicians and artists are there alive today that owe their heritage to copying or borrowing music? Listening to free broadcasts? Taping them? Hearing music covered by artists that weren't the original artists? Fuck you, RIAA. Fuck you and the lame high horse you rode in on. Fuck your be-suited, whoremongering fatcats, fuck your sleazy A&R reps, fuck your cheesy "HITS Magazine", fuck your lame one-note acts and your shrill, wrongheaded bellyaching. Fuck your profits, fuck your bottom line, fuck your whole model of sustainability. You blew it years ago, and you've been given almost a decade to adapt and prosper or fail and perish. I will never willingly pay the RIAA or any member company one red cent - and will avoid products like "Music CD Rs" with your illegal taxes on them. I will relish the day I read the headline: "THE RIAA IS NO MORE!" Fuck you. Die. Go to sleep. Good riddance. Etc.

By: pancreas

pancreas — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:19:06 -0800

RIAA doing double standards - what a surprise.. NOT. They just have no idea. Headless chickens.

By: rand

rand — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:09:51 -0800

I would like to take this time to remind the RIAA that it can kiss my ass. Thank you, and have a good day.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:45:04 -0800

Buying a CD is just way too much effort. If you factor in opening the shrink wrapping and my ability to snap every crystal hinge I have ever touched they just are not a good investment. To be honest when I moved 8 months ago I left my CD binder at my parent's house. I had realized that I hadn't cracked it open in three years before then.

By: charmston

charmston — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:45:13 -0800

The day the RIAA actually gets something done on Capitol Hill will be the day that I read more than a paragraph in articles like that before laughing at their stupidity. If Washington doesn't give them credence, I don't see why I should.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:52:49 -0800

Has the law changed since Sony Betamax vs MPAA case? If not then it would seem pretty clear that time/media shifting of copyrighted works is permited despite whatever wishful thinking is wafting out of the offices of RIAA members.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:53:24 -0800

You could always move to Sweden and vote for the Pirate Party in the next elections.

By: rkent

rkent — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:15:46 -0800

Mitheral: yes, but remember the private-law option.

By: Auz

Auz — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:37:40 -0800

"On the next iteration of DRM CDs (à la the Sony root kit CDs), the RIAA will explicitly say you don't have the permission to rip the CD." And, 10 years from now, you'll need to buy RIAA-approved drugs which will re-wire your brain to hear the scrambled sounds of official RIAA popmusic™. I've heard ripping CDs is "not legal" already in Germany and here in the UK. As far as I'm concerned the "small, convenient sound-carrier units" are to music as the cardboard box is to my OGG player.

By: charmston

charmston — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:06:17 -0800

"I've downloaded my own music just to tweak the nose of the RIAA. Are they going to sue me for illegally downloading my own music? I hope they do." -Moby

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:30:58 -0800

And if you think the industry was giving anyone a free ride enforcement-wise, posters to Get Your Bootleg On can no longer link directly to new songs -- only to their sites. Of course, this suggests that next on the recording industry list is the individual mashers. That's literally, in the course of a few years, going from obscurity to "we'll rip this idea off for awards shows and Linkin Park/Jay-Z" to legally threatening the hub of the art form's universe. Literally, they're taking a new form of art created by people and distributed for free and hijacking it for commercial use only. Incredible.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:06:41 -0800

elcapacito, I have no idea what you're raving about. Read disclaimer's post above. posted by cillit bang at 3:47 PM CET on February 21 [!] Well if you don't have an idea, get some. This just illustrates the absurdity of "licensing" copyrighted material, rather then going by copyright law. This line by delmoi suggested me that there's more to licensing than regulating the ways one could use copyrighted material. We recently talked about RIAA and rkent linked in this comment the Procd vs Zeidenberg court opinion 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) which held that "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are un- conscionable). I guess some fine printing on the box that contain an OEM PC would probably make a shrinkwrap licence of Windows conscionable. While user superficiality or ignorance isn't a legal excuse, I think the salesman wouldn't exactly let the user concentrate on the fact he needs to change Windows if he changes motherboard or some other component. Arguably the consumer bought a computer with a preinstalled operating system for the purpose of using it as a sophisticated domestic appliance ; yet he could decide to change a component of the machine even if that means voiding the warranty..or may decide to do so after the expiration of warranty, so to extend the useful life of the computer. By doing so, Windows would stop working thus rendering the PC unoperable : that's the practical equivalent of having the copyrighted good Windows make your glasses inoperable. All the software (other copyrighted materials) on your computer would become unreadable/not usable because Windows decided you must pay them for the privilege of changing motherboard. I guess that is using shrinkwrap licencing + copyright for the purposes of taking control of the machine.