The RIAA still sucks.

[Quiggs]

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html)

They can get bent.

[fisetdavid26]

MP3 players should be illegal then. How on Earth can you copy songs to your MP3 player if having music files on your computer - even if you own the CD - is illegal?

[johnnynumfiv]

MP3 players should be illegal then. How on Earth can you copy songs to your MP3 player if having music files on your computer - even if you own the CD - is illegal?

Downloaded songs from itunes or another legal place.

[fisetdavid26]

Downloaded songs from itunes or another legal place.
Ah yes, I'm willing to spend $0.99 per song just to buy what I already own so it's legal on my computer. How clever, dear RIAA.

[Quiggs]

Buying songs twice ftl. I don't use iTunes; I have copies of all my CDs ripped from WMP to listen to on my computer. I am breaking the law apparently.

[kingofthering]

Holy crap.

This would mean I've done more illegal shit than Drakkie. :D

But total bullshit. Why can't I put my music on my computer? I bought the CD. I'm not making a profit off it.

[Cyco]

My computer IS my mp3 player

[Sledgehammer]

Basically you can extend this sort of copyright idea to reading a book and then copying/ quoting it in spoken tongue or a napkin.

"This just in, Jesus and God have just filed the largest law suit against the people of christian faith. The suit specifically tagets all priests who for the last few thousand years, quoted and wrote the words of the bible. Priests now looking for new material to avoid hefty penalties, see attached..."

I can see this going infront of the Supreme court and them giving the RIAA the finger and telling them to stop being officious ass hats and to get a life.

[Clivey]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://washingtonpost.com)

They can get bent.

Seconded.:mad:

[baddabang]

RIAA needs to lower it's standards. I suggest moving it's HQ to New Jersey.

[Alastor]

I believe the RIAA called ripped songs "unauthorized" which the article implies to be illegal. However, as I understand it unauthorized does not equal illegal, and ripping songs for personal use is still legal under 'fair use'.

[CdocZ]

Here's what I think they should do - feel free to discuss

- Stop investing further in am/fm radio and start the move (steadily) to digital
- Make a move towards more advertising and scouting for bands, rather than running them/producing them (also steadily)
- Let bands (once settled) produce themselves (as Radiohead recently showed was possible)

This way, the record companies survive and fulfill their purpose to spread the music of whatever band joins their "allegiance" (end signing, it leaves too much control to the record company). Furthermore, the bands will have much more freedom to make their own music, instead of being discovered and then asked to fill in a niche on that companies affiliated radio programs. The musicians will make more money while still getting the advertising they need, the amount of money people pay for music will go down but allow the musicians to still make money (Radiohead made an average of $10 per album sold), and the record companies get to survive.

The current technology that is out there/developing isn't the friend of the record company: the CD is dying with the massive amount of music online, and the radio is steadily being usurped by the digital radio (as prices drop). I don't see how they can have a long future ahead of them unless they make this move with the bands, which is a move towards bands being independently/semi-independently released.

As said earlier, feel free to discuss.

[Quiggs]

The current technology that is out there/developing isn't the friend of the record company: the CD is dying with the massive amount of music online, and the radio is steadily being usurped by the digital radio (as prices drop). I don't see how they can have a long future ahead of them unless they make this move with the bands, which is a move towards bands being independently/semi-independently released.
That's a damn shame. MP3s and all their variants sound like garbage.

[zeppelin]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: f*ck the RIAA.

They are a bunch of dirty, law-manipulating scumbags who change and bend their policies to attack and sue people. Often times people who haven't even downloaded songs get screwed, rather someone else has downloaded through their network. They have no moral or ethic standards, and rather extort people to feed their overwhelming law machine. What's worse is little money they collect will actually go to the artists themselves, who often receive a (relatively) minuscule cut.

That said I thankfully live in Canada, a country with its head not (quite as far) up its own ass. Therefore I can download all the movies and music I please, as we've luckily got more important issues to deal with. I do still support artists, however; the ones actually deserving of my money.

[Alastor]

That's a damn shame. MP3s and all their variants sound like garbage.

FLAC?

[Quiggs]

FLAC?

No. FLAC doesn't use the same kind of compression.

[Alastor]

No. FLAC doesn't use the same kind of compression.

I know, that is why I was suggesting it. Not all online music has to be lossly.

[CdocZ]

I am not saying MP3's are better - crap quality is why I never used limewire once I actually started paying attention to what I listened to.

However, the article did say that dropping record sales was something that the record-companies were worried about. I can't imagine its a lack of interest in music, and the internet-sharing age provides a pretty strong answer.

[zeppelin]

Before online pirating, people were making mixtapes. Sure, the advent of the internet has made it easier for people to obtain copies of music without paying; what it really stems down to nowadays is the quality.

The quality of mainstream music is in a serious decline, and perhaps potential buyers are realizing more and more. There isn't enough incentive to drop nearly 20 bucks on a CD wrapped up in cheap plastic packaging. The CDs, and records, that I (personally) buy are the ones that offer a reason to have the physical copy, or are by artists whose work really deserves the money. The success of legal online distribution should clue them in that dropping record sales aren't a result of online pirating, but rather a shittier product. The music's quality, and what you really get when you drop 15+/- on a CD, are deciding factors of a purchase, online availability or not.

It's all getting stale, and it's time for change. Just look at Radiohead's approach, I'd call it revolutionary, and even though you could choose to pay nothing, they still made it a success in numerous ways. Frivilous lawsuits aren't the answer to a better music future, rather putting the money towards improving the entire music purchasing and collecting experience is. Now if only the suits at the RIAA would listen.

[drakkie]

I have not bought a new CD in almost two years now. I dusted of my dad's old record player on the attic and play almost solely vynil now. Much better value for money and the kind of releases on it are really works of art. My mate also makes welcome use of them in his DJ sets.

I have to admit, I download a CD sometimes too though, but not more than once a month or something.

[baddabang]

I have not bought a new CD in almost two years now. I dusted of my dad's old record player on the attic and play almost solely vynil now. Much better value for money and the kind of releases on it are really works of art. My mate also makes welcome use of them in his DJ sets.

I have to admit, I download a CD sometimes too though, but not more than once a month or something.

you crack me up.

[silverhawk]

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

[zeppelin]

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

The RIAA should just get bent, really.

Sorry, I've got a lot of pent up rage against the subject.

[VtecMini]

When I had an Amiga 500, you were apparently allowed to make copies of any games you owned and use them instead of the originals to avoid damaging the originals, since the game was your property and a damaged original disk was fairly terminal.

I don't think it is, but is this still the case? If so, how is this different?

[2ndclasscitizen]

im not surprised that theyve passed the law against copying music from CDs. What did surprised me is that they charged a person $9,250 per song. they should sue software makers which allow users to copy music from their CDs through their softwares. thats just my opinion.

Under Fair Use Copyright laws around the world, making a personal copy of any music, movie, game etc that you legally own is fine. However, when the US created the DMCA, the act of circumventing any copy protections on a piece of media, regardless of it's your legal copy, was made illegal. So under fair play, you're allowed to make a personal copy, but because you're new CD has some shitty copy protection on it, it's illegal for you to burn it, rip it to your HDD etc.