What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
19 Comments
- UtahPirate, on 12/30/2007, -0/+5Funny part is... a UK study done in Canada shows that those who download for free tend to buy 44% more CD's than those who don't.
- ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 12/30/2007, -0/+4Two words.
Fair
Use
The RIAA's case won't get past the first judge. - hyanakin, on 12/30/2007, -0/+4The CD prices are outrageous and I wonder why they dare to come after people that share culture. If I remember correctly the prices of CDs were justified after they were introduced in the 80ies by the high development costs and there was a promise that the prices will drop once the costs have been covered. Did that happen?
- TehZorroness, on 12/30/2007, -0/+4Some of the garbage propaganda these people spew out is so far-fetched that it's almost funny. By buying a CD you are only stealing one copy? Perhaps we should stop buying their CDs that way they don't need to worry about stealing anything.
Support indy bands. If you know any personally, talk with them about this exact sort of thing (How the RIAA goes around ruining lives just because people share culture). With the prices of modern pro-audio equipment at an all-time low, and the costs of distribution on the internet non-existent, the need for record labels is gone. I hope any new band will see this *now* so we can cut them out of the equation *now.* - iTacoMan, on 12/30/2007, -0/+4Frankly, the prosecution does not have a strong case. You can't really claim that you're redistributing content if you're transferring it from one medium (your CD, that you "own") and your computer. Even with cross format ripping, the files on a CD are not Mp3s, I have yet to find any one CD that has mp3s on it, in raw format; you could rip from AIFF to FLAC if you wanted.
- cptkevin, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Thes people are ***** through and through. We should make copies of our entire CD collection then mail them back the stupid CDs and they can throw them out.
- UtahPirate, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Contrary to Engadget's report, I have someone in the courtroom who says that while the paperwork filed is standard, the verbal disposition is what's different. They're arguing in favor of counting the files as illegal because of the presence of other illegal files. This is *NOT* a misstep, it's calculated, especially since my friend also says they've rejected relevant information in a way that implies (to my friend) the judge is sympathetic to the RIAA.
- UtahPirate, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2Yes, yes it did. Calculating the price of inflation, the CD's of the 80's were $60 each by today's standards. (*BS MODE OFF*) Sorry, had to be done.
- gabdewulf, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Of course the judge is sympathic to the riaa. The riaa doesn't spend the millions in elections for nothing.
- gabdewulf, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2I wonder if the music industry has figured out yet why thier sells drop every year.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2True. There is such a thing as fair use. The problem is. Is that fair use needs to be defined and posted everywhere online... A mass awakening in regards to this issue, if you will....
- Christianptriot, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Wonder why the RIAA or the artists themselves never came after us when we copied our LPs (vinyl discs, the bigones, for those who have never had one) onto 8-tracks and cassettes to play in our cars?!?!
- ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Or when we recorded songs off the radio onto cassette tapes...
- ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1I think it's pretty clear they haven't.
Maybe I can help. Dear ***** at the RIAA. If you need to boot a computer and load Pro Tools at any time to ***** with the 'artist's' voice, you shouldn't have signed them.
And if I buy a CD and rip it to my computer so I can play it on a plane without bringing 100 CDs, I'm gonna ***** do it. Because precedent says it's 'fair use' and entirely legal you pieces of *****. - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1ya.. but they want every penny possible. lulz.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1common misconceptions: imho the law seems to favor corporations and not common sense, .. therefore easily allowing them to sue, even for the same thing over and over again, becuase we will not agree what fair use is for certain... here's a few misconceptions...
# Any use that seems fair is fair use. In the law, the term "fair use" has a specific meaning that only partly overlaps the plain-English meaning of the words. While judges have much leeway in deciding how to apply fair use guidelines, not every use that is commonly considered "fair" counts as fair use under the law.
# Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.
# If it's not fair use, it's copyright infringement. Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Their still about 20 bucks a cd.. here in seattle. At "Easy Street Records" Anyways. This proves there are loyal customers who support artists. The store is packed every weekend.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1And finally.. this law (the home audio recording act of 1992) should be on our side. The courts have ruled that you can record and backup your analog tapes and records ( remember the pre 90's).. but orgs like RIAA say this doesnt apply to Digital (so thats why the get away with hassling everyone about this). But as rational consumers we all know the intent of the law. It is to apply to all copy written material that you purchase for your own use. Im thinking there must be major corruption at the Legislative, Executive and even Judicial branches of Govt. Becuase Judges will not rule so as to make sense, so as to not benefit manking, our citizens in any sort of rational way in regards to this issue. (back door deals, payoffs, bribes must be the norm). Anyways.. back on topic... uh hem....
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) amended the United States copyright law by adding Chapter 10, "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media". The act enabled the release of recordable digital formats such as Sony and Phillips' Digital Audio Tape without fear of contributory infringement lawsuits.
The AHRA's statutory definitions of "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio recording media" are crucial to understanding the implications of the Act. The distinction between covered and non-covered devices or media dictates whether or not royalties are paid and whether the SCMS copy control technologies are included. The language of the act protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings regardless if the copy control technology is present or the royalty has been paid. - Torquedoff, on 01/01/2008, -0/+0Guess that isn't important to them...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is