The RIAA does NOT love you. According to the RIAA, ripping an MP3 of a CD you own is *also* illegal. Whatever happened to "fair use" - the tenet that you were allowed one copy for personal use?

I think u said it correctly sir... A sideline, a new business venture, as in parking and towing away .. Course they could always make making/recording music illegal in the first place, why not? Anyone not in the armpit of major and only major label, can't make music.

Exactly Doc Sanchez, my music collection expanded so much after we got broadband. Clearly a lot was illegal but I like CDs so I like to buy music that I enjoy and I'm not going to spend 10 quid on a CD that I might not like. I'm avoiding most major stuff although it is tricky considering that major labels buy up smaller ones like Epitaph. But it irritates me having lonely songs floating around my media player when I would really like an album. But I'm not going to buy anything without listening to it first. The industry needs to wise up to the fact that people can do this rather than trying to bully the people that buy their shit. Musicians will make money from me but I'm not going to line the pockets of every greedy hanger on here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10322825.stm Check that link out from the BBC how the film industry in the USA is attempting to create a side business of fines.

mmm, stopping groups of all respect playing in and around cities, blacklisting internet sites, and stopping downloads, taping and copying, farenheit 451 no_¿?¿ books next_¿?¿?¿

Lost Soul said:

I wonder how libraries are still able to lend CDs out without prosecution?

I'm working in the movie business, and as far as I know libraries have special deals - the have to pay more than when you buy a CD for yourself, but less than they had to if each one who lends the CD had to pay full price. At least it's like that with DVDs. So yeah, the industry earns money here. As a musician I somehow can understand the wish to earn some money with the music you're making - isn't it the dream of all of us to earn at least that much money with the thing we love to buy loads of records? But here I rely on the real fan - like I am one: I confess I'm downloading music from the internet. But that didn't cost musicians I like money, rather on the contrary. I download stuff, listen to it in my car on an mp3 CD, and if I like it, I buy the album. And most likely the whole back catalogue of bands I wouldn't even know of if it wasn't for "illegal" downloading. I don't get why the music industry doesn't get this point: Give to the listener, and the listener will give back to you (except for some assholes who think they can get everything for free without respect). But if you threaten the listener, he (hopefully) will fuck you sooner or later. "Illegal" downloads are a good method for propaganda, at least for me. And I'm not even talking about buying an LP and wanting to listen to it in my car (since I mostly buy LPs and am not able to convert them to mp3s, I have to download them for my car...). But anyway, if the music industry starts to behave like the Gestapo, I guess I'll stick to free netlabels, cool guys like all the ones you find here, and to direct distribution from the band to the listener, and only buy underground stuff from nice people, without even touching industry. Normally, that's better music anyway, and you know those bastards don't take most of the money for themselves, but it goes to the musician and all the idealists out there. Jeez, fuck the industry! My two cents. Doc Sanchez

It's even worse in Australia. I'm not sure whether I posted something here in the Hideout, but I blogged a few months ago about some Aussie publishing company suing the '80s band Men at Work because they used just a snatch of the children's song "Kookaburra" in a flute solo on their big hit "The Land Down Under." Turns out it's copyrighted. And the sad thing is, THE BASTARDS WON! Here's my blog posts on it : http://steveterrell.blogspot.com/2010/02/of-kooks-kookaburra.html http://steveterrell.blogspot.com/2009/12/weasels-defend-kookaburra.... This little thief is violating the law:

Well, that was inevitable. You can't stop progress. The "industry" has to learn to adapt to changing formats. Remember, even vinyl didn't exist at one time. It's always going to change/evolve, and the industry has to evolve with it... instead of trying to keep things the way they were for a short snapshot of time. Ross Jesus Navaro Richards said:

yeah! and they thought turning the world digital was a great idea.

If they don't have us all scared into a corner, then how would be able to continue flogging overpriced shit to us. I mean I have to pay like 90 cent for a fucking song on Amazon. The only solution is to rip off the customers who listen to music for free.

I have a friend who was recently stung for more than a grand for file sharing. The musicians that you hear about banging on about file sharing are generally corporate cocksuckers like Eminem and Lilly Allen. The could no more survive without a major record label than they could write a half decent song.

With the internet now, no one needs a major to get listeners. You can make a song for next to nothing in a bedroom, and put it out for free for the world to find. It will be nice when the kiddies wake up to this fact and all the major record labels go out of business.

yeah! and they thought turning the world digital was a great idea.

wonder what the musicians think about this?

in my opinion, honestly if a musician is willing to sue someone over there music being shared/handeled/whatever "illegaly" by an honest fan they probably;

1. make or already have made way too much money for what they do
2. are making music for all the wrong reasons
3. have such terrible music that the only reason someone would listen to it is because it's free

maybe all those big corporate record companies going under would be a good thing
i think music could use a good revolution right now anyway

this goes without saying, i still buy cd's when i can because anyone who really gives a fuck about the music that they listen to won't settle for a crappy ass limewire download or some other download shit. if you're in a band that has any real fans they will buy your music when they can. if not, you probably suck at life and shouldn't be playing music for a living.

Sony BMG sucks the sweat from a dead mans cock!!! These multi nationals lose more control the tighter they grip. They're gonna lose they're core listening groups by this futile gesturing. Come the revolution etc. etc. etc. Vive Le Rock!!!

on the same (kinda) subject, kodak used to own all of your photos, whenever u got your negs developed, u only leased the pics from kodak as they owned the film ur image was on! and they could recall anything at anytime...

mmm, another late reply here.. but im new lol! i put up some nice lil films on youtube the other day, and within 2 hours of the last post, they were all taken down, due to copyright etc, now the brains at youtube knew 'the chob', 'bare facts' and some very fuzzed out suzie q from mexico! not too mention a couple of other, lets say not too well known gems! Threats of legal wranglins etc, but i argued the point that im just a father showing his love for the music and my wee girl who was dancin in the films, i have on film the discs, the movies posters lp's cd's tapes on and on.. my collection, some sunshine and smiles from my wee girl, anyway.. i had to remove all infringments, and also... in my house dispose of my personal copies! fuck in hell!

mmm, another 'late' thought on this, they are even trying to get some kick back after you buy a second hand lp/cd from a store lol! whores like madonna are right up there demanding rights! slut!

I wonder how libraries are still able to lend CDs out without prosecution?

Nobody's arguing the point that the guy broke the law. But it appears that the RIAA is trying to say that even ripping a CD is illegal. Actually, if you read the actual brief, even that isn't *quite* what they're saying. However, if you remember what Sony BMG's chief litigator said in court - that making one copy is still stealing one copy - that seems like they are *indeed* trying to tell us that it's illegal.

Having said that, they'd likely get laughed out of court. Still, it's one more reason to hate the buggers.

Actually, this is just kind of a media blow up after some misinterpretation by the Legion that is the Internet. In the particular case that the Washington Post discusses at the beginning of the article you've linked to, the defendant Jeffery Howell is being sued for "illegal downloading," the RIAA's favorite dish of choice. The vague warnings of the questionable legality of ripping a CD to your hard drive combined with some silly scare tactics taken by Sony BMG months ago and the reactionary state of being the Internet exists in kinda made this story snowball. Engadget briefly explains here. Here's a blog post that goes a little more in depth and also has a link to the PDF of the actual brief. Granted, the RIAA are still being dicks, and this sly way of slipping the words "unauthorized copies" into the conversation is some dastardly shit. One wonders what might happen if the RIAA actually tries to go to court on such a platform with a technophobe judge behind the bench. Still, in a country where over 110 million iPods have been sold since its introduction, it's hard to imagine that kind of argument winning. Thanks to Jason Lauderdale for the above info!

It makes you wonder how long it'll be before they start to go after podcasters...

Umm... I think that I was the Home Taper who Killed the music.

It's like the "home taping is killing music" campaign of the 80s.

My guess is...Both. If you can't load CDs onto your computer, then you can't share 'em (as easily). And if you want to play it on your iPod and/or computer, you'll have to buy it via iTunes, etc., as well. MORE money!!!

Hell, the only major label things I even look at these days are box sets of old stuff. If this is the attitude, though, I'm at the point where I'll just not bother w/those boxes. There's plenty of other good music out there.

I did talk to my entertainment lawyer friend about this today and he basically said: (a) the only way they'd even go after you is if you were file sharing in the first place and (b) he doubts they'd manage to win on this part in court. He said, "They can claim anything they want, but that doesn't make it so."

The funny thing is, I have a hard time believing that there are more than a few people at the various labels who don't actually do this themselves!!!

Book me, Dano.

I wonder how long it'll be before it's not legal to listen to a record you didn't buy!?! This kinda thing makes me sick. Music is supposed to be shared, and the more people enjoying it the better.