http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122800693.html

:|

What does this mean? Suppose I buy a CD and wish to transfer some of the songs, not to a computer but to a portable mp3 player or a cellular phone with mp3 play/storage facility. Does this lawsuit mean I'll have to purchase mp3 version of the album again? Does this lawsuit also mean everytime the industry comes up with a new format [vinyl, cassette tapes, CDs and now mp3] the listener has to buy the same album again in the new format? Makes no sense @ all...

The whole purpose of the music/movie industry is to make money without giving a fuck about the consumer.

While they're making billions, people like you and me are being sued for sitting at a computer downloading stuff..

Big criminals we are....

More like welcome to out of date Copyright laws. They need to redraft a copyright for digital media, current copyright law restricts you from making a copy (even if you bought it) without explicit consent from the copyright holder.

Really is ridiculous in today's mp3 player climate.

- lots of swearing about the RIAA -

Alex - removed the language from this post. It was excessive and wasn't necessary

I don't see how anyone is foolish enough to buy that DRMed crap on iTunes. It pretty much forces you to join the cult of Apple.

well damn... guess i cant put music on my ipod...

screw this. I love music too much to care about people coming after me. hundreds of thousands of people do this, there's no way they can catch everyone who does it.

the same thing with downloaded music...



...lame....

>.<

True, but if they DO catch you, you're still fucked in the ass with a rusty pole. Which sucks. Because the RIAA suck. I mean, it's not like people are going to stop downloading music because it's illegal - look at Warez sites for crying out loud!

I don't think they really care as much that you download it, i think they mainly care if you are the re-distributing it...

True, but since when does ethics come into business, sweat shops are a perfect example, anything to make a little more money, can you really blame them?

To stop this we desperately need a complete revisal of copyright law for digital media, until law is revised to actually state that a legal copy can be made for the consumer's use, there's nothing to stop the RIAA as they're acting completely within the law.

...but what about the people who make the music? Do they have any say in the matter? And what do they feel about this issue, that's another important question. And even if they did disagree with the RIAA, would they be able to do anything?

I'm guessing the main issue, as Drake said, is illegal redistribution. But legally, copying songs from a legally-bought CD to your mp3 player also qualifies as 'redistribution'. And suppose your freind asks you to 'give' him/her a song or two -- that's redistribution as well [and illegal].

But the gent who's being sued by the RIAA -- did he have those songs on his computer for purposes of redistribution? Or did he simply want to have easier access to his music?

So if you buy the album on i-tunes to put on your i-pod, that can still be labeled as illegal distribution because suppose your friend asks for it....you can still just as easily give it to them for free....there's basically no way to stop the illegal distribution of music...unless seriously harsh actions are taken.

Well, buying i-tunes songs for your own i-pod is legal -- just like buying a CD for your music system is. But giving your buddy a copy is not, because you're then 'redistributing' it and violating copyright laws. I guess that's how it works. Yes, 'harsh action' against someone doing it could be the RIAA's way of setting an example for all other buyers.

It won't change anything still. like i said before, far too many people do it for them to catch everyone.

But illegal redistribution is a problem, you know.

Think about it -- you design a website template and sell it to me for a certain amount of money. The next thing you know is that a lot of people are using the same template [because I gave it away].

This is more than likely to make you angry, because you got money for it only once, and not from all those people out there who are using it for free! And you have the right to be angry -- after all, you put in your effort, creativity & skills and obviously expect to be reimbursed by those who find your work useful.

Works the same way for musicians.

So the RIAA is doing the right thing by attempting to prevent illegal redistribution.

But perhaps the way it is doing it will affect a lot of people who already have an album on CD and only wish to transfer some songs to their portable devices for their own enjoyment and not for giving it away to others...

So I guess what is needed is a clear definition of 'redistribution'. If you transfer songs to your portable device for your own enjoyment it shouldn't be considered illegal, but if you go around giving it away to people then it'd be illegal.

Thats it true.

and you are right, that would make me very angry

but yeah, I'm sure this will affect some people and convince them not to steal music or anything, but it's not enough to stop enough of the people, far from it.

The only difference, is it's easier to find out where you live if someone sold to you a template lol. So you'd get caught faster.