[chris v]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I don't know if LP's will ever be popular ever again. Does fair use apply to the music received via a Radio signal? I don't remember it being a problem recording songs off the radio onto cassette tape.

Home taping is killing music!

The major-label record industry has been slowly strangling itself since the early 80's. I'm enjoying watching the almost-dead body twitch, at this point.

[zro]

So the bits on a CD aren't music*? What are they? A friggin' ham sandwich?



* I actually agree with this, to a point, because the same cannot be said about the waveforms that line the groove in an LP.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There's an age-old copyright law that allows for people to transfer books, manuscripts, pictures, music recordings, etc. to newer, compatible media.

However, there's some ambiguity that's allowing lawsuits to occur and the RIAA is trying to capitalize on it. I think it was Sony who sued Creative claiming that music stored on a CD isn't music, it's computer data that's interpreted into music (the same goes for MP3s, etc.) They're arguing that once a recording is digitized, it is no longer susceptible to the fair-use copyright law because it's no longer music, and therefore can't be converted to a new medium.

An interesting side effect is that LPs are becoming more and more popular again. Fair-use is still applicable to records.

I think you are not a lawyer - please show me this law. You are very confused - fair use defense applies to all copyrighted material, not just music.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by zro 

So the bits on a CD aren't music*? What are they? A friggin' ham sandwich?



* I actually agree with this, to a point, because the same cannot be said about the waveforms that line the groove in an LP.

I'm not actually sure that the same couldn't be said about the waveforms in an LP (though I understand your point). If I put an LP up to my ear I wouldn't be able to hear those waveforms any better than I'd be able to hear the bits if I held a CD up to my ear. The waveforms may be a more obvious method of encoding sound to a physical medium, but they remain, like MP3s, merely a method of encoding sound to a physical medium.

And what about magnetic media like 8-tracks and cassettes? They're analogue like an LP, but also electronic like an MP3. Or LaserDisks, for that matter.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You are very confused - fair use defense applies to all copyrighted material, not just music.

Nothing he said contradicts that... In fact he explicitly mentioned that it applies to other materials such as books...

[peeb]

He is confused if he thinks that whether or not the material (books, music whatever) would not fall under exactly the same rules if it were encoded electronically.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He is confused if he thinks that whether or not the material (books, music whatever) would not fall under exactly the same rules if it were encoded electronically.

If it were up to the RIAA, probably not. However the publishing industry never decided to take up that battle (probably because books became digitized before computer technology was widespread). But, now that we're starting to see eBooks approach popularity (or at least visibility) we are starting to see DRM applied to digital text, so these issues might become more relevant in the near future.

[peeb]

DRM has nothing to do with fair use defense against copyright laws. Copyright laws apply equally to all media. I think you are thinking of the DMCA.

[Buckaroo]

What about the public library copy machine? I thought we were allowed to make copies of a couple pages of a book in the library.

If this is still true, then what about when the copier scans a page, converts it too bits and reconstructs the page within a processor and prints it on a laser printer.

What many people hate the RIAA for is not the fact that we disagree with coping and sharing is wrong, we just hate their tactics of going after little kids and families. Their message is not being heard. They need to find another method to deal with this.

If I buy a CD, I should have the right to put those songs into any format that I desire. I've already paid for the right to listen to the songs, I shouldn't have to pay a bunch of old fogies so they can become multi billionaires for doing NOTHING.

I wonder what they'll come up with next.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Home taping is killing music!
.

I thought the artists made their money from the tours. The only people making money from distribution sales are a bunch of non value added lawyers.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

DRM has nothing to do with fair use defense against copyright laws. Copyright laws apply equally to all media. I think you are thinking of the DMCA.

That's not true at all. DRM is what makes all this possible. Without DRM there really isn't anything that can be done to prevent sharing, and therefore little point in trying to split hairs over what is and isn't fair use and when. Hence the CD 'loophole'. It's DRM that gives the DMCA its teeth.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What about the public library copy machine? I thought we were allowed to make copies of a couple pages of a book in the library.

You're actually not supposed to do that, although this is practically never enforced.

[peeb]

Wow. What a lot of misconceptions about copyright law - it's ok, it's complicated. Here goes though - DRM has nothing to do with whether something is copyright or not. It is not 'splitting hairs' to point this out - copyright disputes pre-date DRM by a long way. There is no cd 'loophole'. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent a DRM system. It does not affect whether or not a particular use is infringing.

Whether or not you are allowed to photocopy a couple of pages of a book in your library is a complex question involving who you are, what you are copying, how much of it, and what you will use it for. The act of photocopying it, and whether this is a digital or analogue process, does not affect the copyright status of the work in the least.

Furthermore, while you may feel that you have the right to format switch, you have not paid for a 'right to listen' to the songs. There are plenty of basic primers on copyright law on the internet - I suggest you do a little reading before posting.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Whether or not you are allowed to photocopy a couple of pages of a book in your library is a complex question involving who you are, what you are copying, how much of it, and what you will use it for. The act of photocopying it, and whether this is a digital or analogue process, does not affect copyright law in the least.

Didn't say it did, just that at almost every library I've been to, I've seen a sign saying "don't photocopy copyrighted works" near the copier.

Of course, when the book happens to be a music score, there'll often be a "don't photocopy this score" warning somewhere in the book itself, because they seem to be a lot more sensitive about such issues.

[peeb]

Sorry if I misrepresented you, libraries may well ask you not to photocopy copyrighted works - as you point out, this is a different issue to whether or not you have this right in law.

[BadKosh]

I paid RIAA fees back in the 'Disco Days' of the late 1970's.
I paid for the use of my entire LP collection(3000+LP's, 1500+45rpm), to avoid problems.
Public performance.....OK.

So now I have all the tunes I wanted off the LP collection in
my iTunes, transcribed 1 at a time over 3 years.

Is their a problem with that? Aren't those fees permanent?
Other than I have over 50 disks of material that the
CD pushers said would be available on CD.
Never was...

[imitchellg5]

The RIAA can kiss my ass for all I care, I am not going to not rip my CDs.

[Cadaver]

My CD, my iPod, my music. I wont upload copies for anyone to take off the internet, and I wont burn copies for other people, but if I buy some music on those flat, round, shiny things and I feel like listening to it in my car off my iPhone instead, I damn well plan on doing that, without first paying for it again. And if they don't like it, they can come get me.

[peeb]

As we've established, they are not suing people for ripping cds.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by zro 

So the bits on a CD aren't music*? What are they? A friggin' ham sandwich?



* I actually agree with this, to a point, because the same cannot be said about the waveforms that line the groove in an LP.

Yeah, if this is true, then perverts could get away with having child porn, because the pictures are just date represented as bits and bytes...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

As we've established, they are not suing people for ripping cds.

Not yet. I have no doubt it will come to that. The RIAA will not stop to criminalize people.

And that's exactly why I'm thinking more and more about turning to file sharing. Why ?

The RIAA will not listen to the people. But it might listen to the recording artists when their sales go further down. They need to understand that even the most honest people despise being treated like this.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wow. What a lot of misconceptions about copyright law - it's ok, it's complicated. Here goes though - DRM has nothing to do with whether something is copyright or not. It is not 'splitting hairs' to point this out - copyright disputes pre-date DRM by a long way. There is no cd 'loophole'. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent a DRM system. It does not affect whether or not a particular use is infringing.

I know everything you just said. DRM may have nothing to do with whether or not something is copyright, but it has everything to do with the DMCA and the way that copyrights are enforced in the modern era. It's also closely entwined with the issue of what is and isn't fair use and whether the same rules apply to digital media that apply to analogue media if only because it is DRM technology that gives the copyright holders much greater control over what consumers do with copyrighted material than was every possible before.

I know there's no CD loophole, that's why I put it in quotes. However, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, CDs are the weak link in DRM schemes and therefore in enforcing copyright and restricting what can be considered fair use due to their inherent lack of DRM support. Because of this it does open a sort of 'loophole' when dealing with digital music: if you can burn DRMed music to CD, then re-rip it you effectively remove the DRM in a way that simply can't be circumvented due to the limitations of CD technology (or, more specifically, the limitations of the legacy CD hardware already out there).

It is in part due to DRM and the DMCA that the issue is so complicated and poorly understood. It is also thanks to these two things that the RIAA and MPAA now have more leeway than they did before to restrict the use of copyrighted materials and try and change the rules of fair use in certain circumstances. If it weren't for DRM technology and the DMCA backing them up, it would be a lot harder for them to be as aggressive as they are in these issues.

Whether or not you are allowed to photocopy a couple of pages of a book in your library is a complex question involving who you are, what you are copying, how much of it, and what you will use it for. The act of photocopying it, and whether this is a digital or analogue process, does not affect the copyright status of the work in the least.

That's not entirely accurate. As has been pointed out, it's been argued that music on a CD is not actually music, but data that a computer then interprets as music. If this argument is upheld in court, then what is to stop a similar argument from being applied to text? Is an eBook, or a digital scan of a page of text actually text or merely computer data that a computer then interprets as text? If the latter, then there's nothing stopping the publishing industry (except, perhaps, better manners) from pursuing a similar course to that taken by the recording industry in restricting the use of copyrighted text even futher when it comes to computer and the internet. The fact that eBooks are starting to come into their own makes this a very timely question, and one that we should address now before it actually becomes an issue as it has with music.

Furthermore, while you may feel that you have the right to format switch, you have not paid for a 'right to listen' to the songs. There are plenty of basic primers on copyright law on the internet - I suggest you do a little reading before posting.

And this is a big part of the problem. Computer and the internet have completely changed the face of content and content distribution. The public was pretty much caught unawares of this, not realizing that it had new implications for the way they listen to their music, watch their TV and movies, and possibly even read their books. The industries took advantage of this to public lag in awareness to tilt the playing field in their advantage and further confuse matters. The fact that very few people even know what it is that they're getting when they purchase a CD or DVD or download a song or movie from the iTMS is big problem; we need more clarity when it comes to these things.

[boots]

XKCD comes to the rescue

Seriously, though, here's an interview with both the author of the article and the president of the RIAA. notice how the RIAA president never says that converting a legal CD to digital format is legal, just that they never go after anyone. Interesting.

[Cadaver]

CNN, rightly or wrongly, is now reporting that one of the RIAA's claims is that its illegal to copy your CDs to your computer for transfer to an MP3 player.

[brassplayersrock²]

good job RIAA. that was sarcasm

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by boots 

XKCD comes to the rescue

Seriously, though, here's an interview with both the author of the article and the president of the RIAA. notice how the RIAA president never says that converting a legal CD to digital format is legal, just that they never go after anyone. Interesting.

Well, this shows how stupid the president of the RIAA is. Music on a cd is digital. Music on a computer hard drive is digital. You just transfer it from one medium to another, sort of like making a cassette copy from your cd to listen to in the car.

[Cipher13]

Meh. I haven't bought a CD (from non-independents) in a long, long time, mostly because of antics like this.

Maybe one day if they straighten themselves out I'll consider it again.

[zro]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Yeah, if this is true, then perverts could get away with having child porn, because the pictures are just date represented as bits and bytes...

There seems to be a typo in there that keeps me from being certain of what you mean. What an interesting moral dilemma. If the RIAA does pursue this and loses, it could create a precedent like what you're describing. If they pursue and win... well, we'll probably all be criminals then, won't we.

At any rate, a digital image file is not a photograph any more than a CD is a vinyl record. They are merely digitized versions that need to be decoded to meet their intent. Without a decoder, is a CD music? Would a JPEG be a scene? Though film and vinyl also aren't what they represent, they're as close to capturing it as you're going to get.

Reminds me of the saying, 'If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?' If a CD is in your pocket, can you listen to it? Are there copyright notices on music box cylinders? If the tune isn't public domain, I'd bet so.

So like I said, I agree with it to a point, however the *intent* of the bits is clear. They are meant to be music. Or in your example, child porn.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

, sort of like making a cassette copy from your cd to listen to in the car.

Which is something they've frowned upon mightily back in the 1970's. They've been fighting this losing battle for over 20 years.

[boots]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Well, this shows how stupid the president of the RIAA is. Music on a cd is digital. Music on a computer hard drive is digital. You just transfer it from one medium to another, sort of like making a cassette copy from your cd to listen to in the car.

Sorry, that was my (poor) synopsis. Listen to the piece (it's not long). I think you'll still call him stupid, but for a little better reason.

[peeb]

Get this.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music -- iPod -- InformationWeek

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Get this.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music -- iPod -- InformationWeek

I saw this on /. yesterday. This will be an interesting case to watch because it makes for a nifty-sounding press release, but technically it's all wrong. Just because the iPod chipset supports WMA doesn't mean that Apple's OS is obligated to license the protected version from Microsoft. I would wager that even if Apple asked Microsoft to licence protected WMA, Microsoft would either decline, or put conditions on it (like integration into iTunes) that are not in the best business interest of Apple. In no sense is Apple acting like a monopolist here. If anything, if was the record companies who were flexing Monopoly power when they insisted that Apple put protection on their music files, and even that stance is cracking

If the judge has a clue he would throw the case out of court and give the lawyers a good chiding. But not all judges have a clue about technology, so we'll see how far it gets.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Get this.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music -- iPod -- InformationWeek

Really. Wasn't it Microsoft being monopolistic in the first place by CREATING the WMA format, instead of using an open standard like MP3 or AAC? I find it difficult to not wish bodily harm on the vexatious litigants in cases like these.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Really. Wasn't it Microsoft being monopolistic in the first place by CREATING the WMA format, instead of using an open standard like MP3 or AAC? I find it difficult to not wish bodily harm on the vexatious litigants in cases like these.

Uh, MP3 and AAC are not open standards. They are both part of the MPEG standard and you have to pay license fees in order to use them...

So far as I know, the only really open standards for audio are FLAC and Ogg Vorbis (and, I think, a few other more specialized ones).

[Dork.]

The RIAA is now claiming that they were misunderstood all along....

RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Here was an opportunity for [RIAA President] Sherman to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements. He did state that there is one full-proof way of discovering the RIAA's policy on personal use: check the record.

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single claim has ever been made."

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Get this.
Antitrust Lawsuit Charges Apple With Monopolizing Online Music -- iPod -- InformationWeek

Really? I thought I read somewhere 20 odd years ago that Apple was doomed and going out of business.

[Dakar the Fourth]

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single claim has ever been made."

Feels like there's an unspoken "yet" hanging in the air, doesn't it?

[boots]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The RIAA is now claiming that they were misunderstood all along....

RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

What I posted was the actual exchange between Sherman and Fisher. Sherman does not say that it is legal to "copy for personal use," just that they've never brought a case. He refused to be nailed down on this. So yeah, there is a big "Yet!" implicit.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Uh, MP3 and AAC are not open standards. They are both part of the MPEG standard and you have to pay license fees in order to use them...

So far as I know, the only really open standards for audio are FLAC and Ogg Vorbis (and, I think, a few other more specialized ones).

Shows what I know. Who owns them? (mpeg)

[analogika]

mp3 is owned and licensed by the Fraunhofer Institut in Erlangen, Bavaria.

MP3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AAC does not directly require licensing fees, making it cheaper than mp3 to support, but is subject to patent licensing:

Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia