[TailsToo]

I'm so tired of these guys... no wonder we pay so much for CDs - they have to pay for their vast army of lawyers. Something should really be done to stop this nonsense.


http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6017...7487&subj=news

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Which is more embarrassing for you americans? Bush or the RIAA?

[Dakar]

How are they not suing the manufacturer? Also, 150,000 a song?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Which is more embarrassing for you americans? Bush or the RIAA?

In two years Bush will be an unpleasant memory, but the RIAA is likely to last a lot longer than that. Thus, I'm forced to suggest the RIAA.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In two years Bush will be an unpleasant memory, but the RIAA is likely to last a lot longer than that. Thus, I'm forced to suggest the RIAA.

Good point. I'd have to say the RIAA also. Why hasn't someone stopped these people yet?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I'd say Bush is more damaging and embarrassing (since the whole world is watching) but the RIAA is more evil than Bush.

[cpt kangarooski]

Dakar--
$150,000 per song (n.b. not per copy -- 100 copies of the same song still only counts once) is the maximum amount of statutory damages provided in the law. The actual amount awarded could be as low as $750 per song, or if XM really does well in the suit (unlikely) $200 per song. No lower than that, however. RIAA could alternatively have sued for the actual damages caused to them, plus the profits of XM that are attributable to this, but they didn't probably because 1) they think the amount would end up being lower, and 2) it's more work.

TailsToo--
I'm no fan of RIAA, but are you insinuating that there's something wrong with paying for a vast army of lawyers? If so, I can't imagine what.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Dakar--
$150,000 per song (n.b. not per copy -- 100 copies of the same song still only counts once) is the maximum amount of statutory damages provided in the law.

I got it. For each song that could be pirated.

[Eriamjh]

I don't get it. So what you can store some XM. Can you dump it to a computer? If not, then it is not a "digital download device".

[gururafiki]

How is this recording different from recording music from FM radio?

[cpt kangarooski]

Dakar--
No, not each song that could be pirated, each song that is. RIAA does still have the burden of proving that the infringement occurred. It's just that the number of times the copyright is infringed upon doesn't matter.

Eriamjh--
Just downloading it into the memory of the reciever is sufficient as far as the law is concerned.

Guruafiki--
It's not. Recording music from the radio is illegal too, unless you can find an applicable exception such as 107 or 1008. But those don't always apply. XM can defend itself by arguing that these protect its users. If the users aren't breaking the law, then XM cannot be in trouble for helping them do what they're doing. But if the users are breaking the law, then XM has helped, and is on the hook for that.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

How is this recording different from recording music from FM radio?

it isn't. It is also the same thing as taping TV shows onto VHS, coping CD's/VHS/Tapes.

This idiots just want to make an issue of it 30 years later.

[Rumor]

Does this mean I have to dispose of all the tapes I recorded of the radio from the late 80's?

[Seattle]

"XM said the device does not allow consumers to transfer recorded content." I got a S50 for christmas and returned it because you could not even backup the data on my computer. The thing sounds like a Tivo where are you can do is time shift and store content. (Now with Tivo to go you can transfer to your computer).

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

It's not. Recording music from the radio is illegal too, unless you can find an applicable exception such as 107 or 1008. But those don't always apply. XM can defend itself by arguing that these protect its users. If the users aren't breaking the law, then XM cannot be in trouble for helping them do what they're doing. But if the users are breaking the law, then XM has helped, and is on the hook for that.

Well now I am confused. If it is illegal to record music from FM radio, then why hasn't the RIAA gone after manufacturers of radio/tape players for being able to record radio onto a tape? This technology has been around for years, and yet the RIAA has sat on their haunches and done nothing about it! The RIAA has completely lost any little bit of legitimacy and respect that it may have previously had.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

it isn't. It is also the same thing as taping TV shows onto VHS, coping CD's/VHS/Tapes.

This idiots just want to make an issue of it 30 years later.

Isn't there a law that says it is legal to record public broadcasts for personal use? And didn't Napster try to use it as a defense before they went into the legal download business?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Isn't there a law that says it is legal to record public broadcasts for personal use? And didn't Napster try to use it as a defense before they went into the legal download business?

You are also allowed to make backups of your CD's but that hasn't stopped copy protected CD's from coming out.

[cpt kangarooski]

guruafiki--
Because the music industry, about 15 years ago, pushed through a law that allows people to make some recordings from the radio, in exchange for a manditory royalty they get on the sales of blank audiotapes, regardless of how they're used. The same law crippled DAT, Minidisc, and non-computer CDR burners, contributing to their unpopularity. They tried, back in the late 90's, to get mp3 players crippled under the same law, but failed because mp3 players don't rip music; computers do. And computers are not covered by this law.

The law in question is the Audio Home Recording Act, located at 17 USC 1001 et seq. The provision that people usually latch onto and fatally misread is 17 USC 1008. But reading it without taking into consideration the important definitions of the terms used in the law, which are located at 17 USC 101 and 1001 is a huge mistake. Also, where the 1008 shield is available, the crippling provisions of 1002 apply, so it's not as though it's really something you normally want to have to labor under. The costs outweigh the benefits.

Anyway, don't you remember the huge campaigns on the subject? Like "Home Taping Is Killing Music (And It's Illegal)." I do. I also remember the response of the Dead Kennedys who shipped their albums on tape with one side left blank so that they could help.

Isn't there a law that says it is legal to record public broadcasts for personal use?

No. There is fair use, but there are no uses that are always fair uses. It depends on the circumstances involved.

Severed--
No, unless the CDs, and the method or media you're using to make a backup of the CD, all falls under the AHRA, it is illegal to make a backup of it. Unless, again, you can get in the fair use exception, which is possible but not certain.

Rumor--
No. Just having the tapes or listening to them isn't illegal, though making them might have been and selling or trading them to other people likely still would be. Besides, any illegality in making them is probably no big deal now due to the statute of limitations for civil copyright actions.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Severed--
No, unless the CDs, and the method or media you're using to make a backup of the CD, all falls under the AHRA, it is illegal to make a backup of it. Unless, again, you can get in the fair use exception, which is possible but not certain.

In Canada you pay a tax on blank CD-R's to pay back artists they assume you are stealing from.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Which is more embarrassing for you americans?

People confusing Canadians for Americans.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

In Canada you pay a tax on blank CD-R's to pay back artists they assume you are stealing from.

Yes in Canada you are guilty before you even commit a crime.

[FeLiZeCaT]

And I thought Bin Laden was Evil.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Isn't there a law that says it is legal to record public broadcasts for personal use? And didn't Napster try to use it as a defense before they went into the legal download business?

It's called Timeshifting, and yes, it's part of the fair use laws in the US.
But you can't profit at all from the content, and you can't redistribute it.

[shabbasuraj]

RIAA please die