@stevem2
No worry. I am always a peaceful protester.
It just seems that over the past few years, laws are being passed that serve only the large and POWERFUL corporate entities. Sometimes I see little logic, even for them in the long run.
The little guys are being squeezed out and the consumer getting what and when the big boys want to supply and on THEIR terms.
Wasn’t this why all the tea ended up in Boston harbor?
Now these same descendants are nibbling away at every right that the little guy still has and it all boils down to more $$$ for those at the top and the hope that the pennies that are left over are enough to content those at the grunt level.
When corporations [with no contribution caps] can dictate who gets elected then it is no longer just corporate and it becomes political and the law and the legal norm.
Music is a wonderful gift of nature both for the player and the listener.
I would like to hear that some of my spending that results in corporate profits ends up in ipods and given free to kids who may be inspired to become musicians and join bands rather than gangs. At the moment we consider them criminals for sharing?
I am by nature a left wing Republican in that I believe that the responsibility falls on the educated elected to maintain the intention of the founders and for the GOOD of the people. But I also believe that there is an obligation to protect, mend and educate so that everyone has a chance to climb the ladder.
My 14 year old nephew was over the other night and played me a track from his ipod that he was “given” by a friend. He asked me who the artist was. I used soundhound to identify the album.
He said “wow” " I never thought I would like Classical Music".
He now wants to learn an instrument and it looks like it will not be for pop so for his next birthday we will be trying out some instruments after an evening at the Montreal Symphony.
Should I really have scolded him? or warned him of jail time?
He spends 1/2 of his allowance already on itunes downloads and decides what he wants to OWN by sharing.
I’m just happy he doesn’t want an AK47 even though that’s legal.
Sorry for the rant but isn’t some stuff getting really stupid?
Gordon, I believe that you are right on with that post. You did err on one thing though… LOTS of stuff is getting really stupid! 
J.P.
@Gordon: If you don’t love AK47’s then you must be a RADICAL left wing Republican. 
Down here I get treated like a commie pinko for being moderate.
Now about IP, the AK47 is the most counterfeited weapon in the world. We need strong IP regimes to bring about world peace! 
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend> <a href="/wp-content/uploads/attachments/53963=1863-cd5e5fa32cb704b5973cc612307712.png"><img src="/wp-content/uploads/attachments/53963=1863-cd5e5fa32cb704b5973cc612307712.png" class="gc-images" title="/FileUpload/a8/cd5e5fa32cb704b5973cc612307712.png" style="max-width:300px" /></a> </fieldset>Elk said: If I do not like the price of a new recording, do not like the sound quality, etc., I do not buy it.
How can you check the sound quality without buying it first (or downloading it from mmm... somewhere)?
ELK, I would respectfully suggest that the RIAA is not the best source for an objective discussion of copyright law. Nor does your quote actually refute my point–“personal use” could refer to copying someone else’s disc. They cite nothing that suggests making a personal back-up copy is illegal. To the contrary, they state:
"However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying."
You’ll find the Betamax case at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
It primarily addresses whether Sony was liable because it allowed owners of VCRs to violate other people’s copyrights but also found that even unauthorized copying for time shifting purposes was in fact fair use as such noncommercial copying imposed minimal harm on the copyright holder. There was nothing in the statute that defined “fair use” in the VCR context but that did not stop the court from concluding it applied. (Btw, although IP is not my area, I am not a layman and I am not confusing my personal view of what is fair with “fair use”.)
Now about IP, the AK47 is the most counterfeited weapon in the world. We need strong IP regimes to bring about world peace! :D
I believe Kalashnikov has sued some manufacturers but it was probably for trade mark infringement. Don't know how the cases came out. The patents would have expired ages ago and copyright would not apply.
>:)
The Beretta case was interesting.
Follow The Money.
For decades the RIAA has been the anti-piracy bastion of the music industry, but the new numbers show that the group’s financial power is weakening.
The drop in income can be solely attributed to lower membership dues from the major music labels. Over the past two years label contributions have dropped to $23.6 million, and over a three-year period the labels cut back a total of $30 million, which is more than the RIAA’s total income today.
The cutbacks are not immediately apparent from the salaries paid to the top executives. RIAA Chairman and CEO Cary Sherman, for example, earned $1.46 million compared to $1.37 million the year before. Senior Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier also saw a modest rise in income from $618,946 to $642,591.
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-makes-drastic-employee-cuts-as-revenue-plummets-130522/
Gordon said: The cutbacks are not immediately apparent from the salaries paid to the top executives. RIAA Chairman and CEO Cary Sherman, for example, earned $1.46 million compared to $1.37 million the year before. Senior Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier also saw a modest rise in income from $618,946 to $642,591.
This is what I would call piracy! :D
Alekz said:
This is what I would call piracy! :D
THEREFORE THE POST.
IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO SIT IN ON A BOARD MEETING DURING THEIR REVIEWS TO WITNESS THE CRITERIA THAT JUSTIFIES THE INCREASES.
PERHAPS IT WAS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND THEIR GRANDMOTHERS FROM WHOM THE FINES WERE GLEANED?
COULD THEY NOT SPEND SOME OF THIS ON VISIONARIES WHO COULD REWRITE THE MODEL?
SORRY, CAPS STUCK ON THIS BOARD.
I think shouting (CAPS) is pretty much appropriate here
Curiously enough the all caps did suit the post.
J.P.
I have an old windows machine in the basement that I am using to A to D all my old photo, slide and negatives. A while back my coffee spilled on it.
Sometimes it sticks and sometimes it doesn’t or only a few.
It has me so enthralled that I can’t bear to part with it till I figure it out.
Well, some sites do let you sample their music, albeit in short clips.
EDIT: oops, dang iPhone…this was a reply to an earlier part of the thread…was reading the wrong page.
I mean I WAS READING THE WRONG PAGE.
When we purchase a CD, do I own a copy of the album but only on the cd ?
I presume the album, since my HD tracks stuff came with no cd.
Then I should be able to take the album. which I own, anywhere that I want to and in any form.
Even play it on a friend’s machine or even lend it to him for a weekend?
Also I have boxes of albums that I would like to return to the record companies since the sound doesn’t sound as good as it used to and they can either give me a new LP or cd, at their choice.
Seems fair?
My question:
If I own a vinyl copy of an album, it appears to be OK to make a digital copy for backup or alternate playback use. Now, is it OK to borrow a CD of the same album and rip a copy of that for my digital collection? I already own a legal copy of the album, so what is the difference if my digital backup comes from my vinyl copy or someone else’s CD?
J.P.
Not an easy question JP but I think there is a difference. When you copy the vinyl you are copying the medium you paid for and it will sound no better than the vinyl. With the CD, you get an essentially identical CD that may sound better or worse than the vinyl copy but will sound different from the medium you own. Would you say that having paid for a mp3 download that you were entitled to copy a friend’s CD because you bought the “music” albeit in an inferior format? Or to take it farther, to copy a friends high res files? I personally don’t think so. In either your hypothetical or my variations, you are not backing up (or ripping to hard drive) what you own.
David said: 'patent exhaustion' isn't tired intellectual property.
Good one!
Alekz said: How can you check the sound quality without buying it first . . .
Simple - know who recorded/mastered it, what label, reputable reviews, etc. I'm sure you already know this.
stevem2 said: I would respectfully suggest that the RIAA is not the best source for an objective discussion of copyright law.
I do not disagree. Although their statement as to the law are typically very accurate. The suspicious source of legal interpretation is the pirates. :)
Regardless, as I tried to make clear (and your quote of the RIAA further supports my point) the RIAA does not consider the copying of a legitimate owned recording by the owner for his own use objectionable; they will not pursue this copyright violation. Thus, you are free to make such copies as backup, for the car, transcode to MP3, etc. with impunity. The RIAA states it does not care. You should not either. :)
stevem2 said: There was nothing in the statute that defined "fair use" in the VCR context but that did not stop the [Betamax] court from concluding it applied.
Correct. As I explained previously, the enumerated examples in the Fair Use provision of the Act are not exclusive, but illustrative. One can find other forms of Fair Use if the provision's factors balance in favor of a finding of Fair Use. I explained this above.
One needs to remember the Betamax decision was primarily concerned with whether Sony was illicitly contributing to copyright infringement by making a VCR available for sale. In deciding it was not, the Court noted there were other clear, non-infringing uses of a VCR. Additionally, the court concluded time-shifting free, programs distributed on the airwaves was not a copyright violation. This further supported holding Sony was not in violation.
Time shifting of free, public airwave TV for later personal viewing is very different from pirating a decidedly not-free, commercial CD. That is, Betamax is easily distinguishable.
Gordon said: The drop in income can be solely attributed to lower membership dues from the major music labels.
Very easy to understand; the labels are not making the money they used to.
Gordon said: When we purchase a CD, do I own a copy of the album but only on the cd ?
I presume the album, since my HD tracks stuff came with no cd.
You own only the copy you purchased, not the album. You can sell or give away the CD. You can sell or give away the HDTracks version. But if you do either you cannot keep a copy.
wingsounds13 said: If I own a vinyl copy of an album, it appears to be OK to make a digital copy for backup or alternate playback use. Now, is it OK to borrow a CD of the same album and rip a copy of that for my digital collection?
No. See above. You only own the specific copy you purchased. You do not own all versions of the album which may otherwise exist.