Ripping CDs To Computer Is Illegal - Page 5

Wagner · #41 01-03-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krimson X

All of my music is backed up on a 80g USB portable hard disc drive. It is more convenient and it allows me to preserve my original copy without the risk of it being scratched or damaged. No file sharing here, though.

My right to do so has been jurisprudentially supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, and The Fair Use Act.

Basically, what we have here is a industry that is trying to survive in the digital age. The need for the current medium such as CD's are now obsolete. Plus CD's have been overpriced for a long time, and artists usually only see .25 to .50 cents per unit sold. The artists make most of their money on live performances.

Where was the RIAA when I used to rock the dual tape deck.

You are correct which thus makes this whole case BS.

Sponsored Links

SuaveX5 · #42 01-03-2008, 02:25 PM

I would like to check the computer of a few CEO of major record company and I bet you that they will have MP3`s for their personal use!
And I bet they have some sort of portable MP3 player that they use them self!

nupe10123 · #43 01-03-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuaveX5

I would like to check the computer of a few CEO of major record company and I bet you that they will have MP3`s for their personal use!
And I bet they have some sort of portable MP3 player that they use them self!

I would also bet that the CEO you mention has 'permission' to have the copy. Regardless of how easy it is or how common it is to make copies of the artistic work of others, it doesn't make it right or legal. Most artist are not rich (obviously many are, but not the majority), however, the economic means of the artist, record execs etc isn't the point. The point is that making copies of someones work is illegal.

haigha · #44 01-03-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nupe10123

The point is that making copies of someones work is illegal.

Re-read the thread.

Ripping a CD to MP3 is claimed to be illegal by the RIAA. Whether it is illegal has not been established in case law.

If you have any facts that contradict this let me know. The links I have provided cite experts in this area of law that back up my statement.

chilliwilli · #45 01-03-2008, 04:42 PM

Is doing everything in it's power to maintain their bottom line in the ever evolving digital age. Standard artist contracts now has labels (both majors & indy's) taking a % of merchandising, tours and wherever else possible...Forcing new talent to sign their artistic lives away. Personally, I believe they made their first mistake by blackballing napster...just think of the endless posibilities had they somehow embraced the concept, at very least for marketing purposes.

Krimson X · #46 01-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nupe10123

I would also bet that the CEO you mention has 'permission' to have the copy. Regardless of how easy it is or how common it is to make copies of the artistic work of others, it doesn't make it right or legal. Most artist are not rich (obviously many are, but not the majority), however, the economic means of the artist, record execs etc isn't the point. The point is that making copies of someones work is illegal.

Are you telling me that if I spend my $11.99 on a CD that I cannot transfer that data to my computer without sharing it with anyone else to be later transferred to my Ipod?

It is not entirely illegal to make copies of copyrighted work.

United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 17. Copyrights (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 1. Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright (Refs & Annos)
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

haigha · #47 01-04-2008, 11:42 PM

So the whole story that the RIAA is prosecuting for ripping is bogus. RIAA chief says Sony lawyer misspoke:

"Sherman went on to say that the RIAA hasn't ever prosecuted anyone for ripping or copying for personal use, and that the only issue in the Jeffrey Howell case was -- as always -- sharing files on Kazaa. Perhaps most interestingly, Sherman directly addressed the "ripping is just a nice way of saying 'steals one copy'" comment made by Sony BMG's anti-piracy counsel in the Jammie Thomas case, saying that the attorney "misspoke," and that neither Sony BMG or the RIAA agreed with that position."

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/r...sspoke-during/

AzNMpower32 · #48 01-04-2008, 11:55 PM

I do it all the time. Big whup. I buy CDs when I think they're geniunely good albums as a whole. If it's just one song that's good (which is often the case), then I'm not willing to pay $20 for it.

JCL · #49 01-05-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32

I do it all the time. Big whup. I buy CDs when I think they're geniunely good albums as a whole. If it's just one song that's good (which is often the case), then I'm not willing to pay $20 for it.

See post #11

Sponsored Links