Print 114 comment(s) - last by Christopher1.. on Dec 24 at 8:25 PM

Fair use under direct attack in Atlantic v. Howell

In a legal brief filed for Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA once again stated its distaste for users who copy CDs for personal, private use.

The RIAA wrote that “it is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies” – referring to the Howell’s collection of mp3 files made from their own CDs – and noted that “once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.”

The Judge’s question was, “Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an ‘unlawful copy’ of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?”

Similar sentiments were heard in testimony leading up to the conclusion of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, where Sony BMG’s head of litigation equated Fair Use to stealing and testified that copying music for personal use is just “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy.’”

Admittedly, the wording in its Atlantic v. Howell brief is vague and its exact message unclear. Judging purely on the statements expressed in its brief for Atlantic v. Howell, opinion seems divided on the true intent: does ripping music to a computer for personal use produce an unlawful copy? Or is the act of placing said music into a shared folder that makes it unlawful? As the RIAA chose to use the word “unauthorized” instead of “unlawful,” interpretation is further complicated; “unauthorized” and “unlawful” have two very different legal definitions, and many think that the RIAA did not even answer the Judge Wake’s question.

The piracy section on the RIAA’s website offers further confusion, with its legal section making no mention of the legalities of “ripping.” The closest analogue to ripping would be directly copying music to a CD-R, which says that while users have “no legal ‘right’” they can generally avoid legal confrontation by making sure said music is only copied for personal use.

An official response from the District Court will likely hinge on the RIAA’s distinction between “unauthorized” and “unlawful,” and whether or not it feels Howell is liable for ripping the CDs themselves, or placing them in a p2p client’s shared folder.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By umeng2002 on 12/17/2007 7:41:12 PM , Rating: 5
“once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format AND they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.”

Not OR, AND!!!

They didn't say making mp3s for personal use is unauthorized. They said making mp3 to share with many anonymous users is illegal.

By cmdrdredd on 12/17/2007 7:51:03 PM , Rating: 5
Forgot to add...

By that logic you can't even playback a CD unless you wear headphones because you are sharing the music with everyone who is within listening range. Ridiculous I know, but it's basically the same thing. Oh and you can't watch a DVD with your friends because that would be considered "Public exhibition" which is outlined in the warning at the beginning of all the DVDs currently produced.

By Christopher1 on 12/18/2007 8:29:13 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, it is true. Don't you remember the teachers who were sued for showing a nature movie in their classrooms 14 years ago? That happened to my teacher, and I was NOT happy about it at all when I heard that had happened to her.

We need to expand fair use to say that public performances of things ARE legal unless (and this is the catch) you are charging admission of some kind of see the movie, hear the music, etc.

Absent that 'pay to watch/hear'..... it should be legal.

By Spivonious on 12/18/2007 10:55:24 AM , Rating: 4
Ah, but your teacher's case is very clearly supported under the Fair Use clause, as it was purely educational.

By Christopher1 on 12/24/2007 8:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't get her out of it. She brought that up in court, and still got socked with a 1200 dollar judgement against her, because the judge didn't see that part of the law.

The judges in this country cannot know every single bit of every single law that is on the books.... that is why I say that laws should say what is PERMITTED, instead of what is illegal.... that would be shorter and more to the point in most cases.

By onwisconsin on 12/17/2007 9:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget by talking to friends about the movie, you are illegally copying the movie and sharing it....

By GaryJohnson on 12/17/2007 10:57:05 PM , Rating: 5
What if I remeber part of the movie and play it back in my head at a later date, after I've sold the movie, returned it to the place I rented it from, or saw it in a theatre.

My brain violates the DMCA!

By feraltoad on 12/18/2007 5:59:01 AM , Rating: 5
That's why the RIAA recommends DRM Bytes Breakfast Cereal. The white marshmallows are Trilafon (anti-nausea drug) so you can stomach their bulls#it, the blue ones are Valium so you don't care, and the green ones are, well I don't know, but there delicious.

"Oh No! The kids are after me over-valued product they are no longer willing to buy on me out-moded sales model!"

By 1078feba on 12/18/2007 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're too far off on that scenario. When it comes to the RIAA and the like, the one thought I keep in the back of mind is that the RIAA sees every single use of copyrighted musical material as a missed revenue opportunity.

After one understands that, every one of their actions make sense from their point of view. "Draconian" as an adjective merely scratches the surface.

By rcc on 12/18/2007 2:10:19 PM , Rating: 3
lol, your brain violates common sense, so why not the DMCA?

: )

By sxr7171 on 12/18/2007 3:39:21 AM , Rating: 4
Listen you both have a point. Initially when I read the headline my response was going to be directed at the RIAA and it really was going to be unmentionable. However let's cut through the crap here. There is a difference between playing music for friends and leaving it shared where other people can copy it to their computers. The headline is pure sensationalism and is a cheap shot at getting people to read his article. I mean if ripping were "unauthorized use" then there is no legal use for an iPod (or other DAP, I mention iPod because it pioneered the "rip and carry" concept) for all intents and purposes. The RIAA would have fought the fundamental concept of a DAP in that case.

Yes, the RIAA is a draconian organization that is among the worst cartels in the world and I never thought I would take it's side against anything but the one thing I hate more is an author just putting up a blatantly false headline for the sake of readership. It just reeks of piss poor journalism. Well, I guess the argument here at DT is that since this is a "Blog" we are not to expect any standards here, just a bunch of words on a screen. Don't get me wrong either, I have grown to love DT in fact I read it everyday and have made it my source for tech news, but there is no excuse for a blatantly false title.

By Denigrate on 12/18/2007 11:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
IPod DID NOT pioneer the rip and carry concept. They merely stole the idea and marketed it better than the original developers.

By Cerberus29 on 12/18/2007 12:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
thats exactly what makes me hate apple. They make lots of people think that they had the first this and the first that.

When if you actually look at it, some other company has had the feature for ages.

Like the iPod video which was supposedly the first video compatible mp3/mp4, which it wasn't.

I am really getting annoyed at the RIAA and the british version, they really need to accept that everything is going digital and that ripping CDs and even sharing them over p2p is never going to stop, ever. As soon as someone brings out a secure new DRM, someone else will break it. By the logic of computers and the way they work you can never really have a 100% secure file/system etc.

I really do think a mass boycott or mass protest is in order to show the RIAA (and british one) that we, the consumers, aren't going to put up with this kind of rubbish. Soon you won't be able to talk at all as you'll be breakig copyright as the words you speak have been used in some artists song and is therefore breaking copyright.

Something needs to be done.

By Silver2k7 on 12/22/2007 11:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
" I mention iPod because it pioneered the "rip and carry" concept)"

I think Diamond Multimedia was first.. atleast they got sued to bancrupcy for selling mp3 players.. that company ressurected this year or atleast the name..

As I recall there where lots of small companies making mp3 players before Apple.

By Oroka on 12/17/2007 10:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
In Canada, that would clearly be legal. If you didnt place those files in your shared folder, they were placed there automatically, then you are not expressidly sharing the file and you are not doing anything illegal, it is your computer automatically sharing these files.

While I support buying music, and the RIAA have the right to protect thier investments, sueing customers based on antiquated laws and social norms is not the way to protect thier products.

WMP automatically rips your CDs into a digital format, no action on your part needed. Shouldnt M$ be held accountable for enabeling digital copies of music, and shouldnt P2P programs be held accountable for automatically sharing your music folder?

If my mom with her limited computer skills puts her Abba CD in her computer to play it, and a digital copy is made without her interaction, is she a criminal? Did she commit a crime?

By True Strike on 12/19/2007 2:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
This is an option that can be disabled. Tools>Options>Rip Music tab>Checkbox "Rip CD when inserted". I am sure since this can be disabled through a simple checkbox that Microsoft could have any lawsuit against them redirected at the user.

By Fritzr on 12/20/2007 9:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
If the default is changed to 'Do NOT Rip CD when inserted' then MS would be safe. MS already lost the right to include Java as an OS component when they set the defaults on MS-Java to enable all the Windows extensions. MS could have gotten away with distributing a Windows only version of the all-platform language if they had required users to turn on the proprietary extensions before using them.

As it is MS defaults to 'Rip CD and illegally share the MP3'. Wonder when the RIAA will notice this. After all the preset default that is selected by the MS-Installer is not the choice of the user who does not review all of the user modifiable settings.

By Spuke on 12/24/2007 2:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
As it is MS defaults to 'Rip CD and illegally share the MP3'. Wonder when the RIAA will notice this.
They'll never go after Microsoft. It's not that they wouldn't have grounds to do it, it would more than likely cause more damage to the industry.

What if Microsoft started their own music and movie companies? They have more than enough money to setup their own distribution networks. This would cut out the entire movie and record industry. Offer the artists and actors more money to sign, setup digital distribution and the RIAA and MPAA would die a certain death.

By eye smite on 12/17/2007 10:31:27 PM , Rating: 4
All I can do is sing everytime I see something like this, and let me tell you what it is. Do you remember that old village people song YMCA? You reword it to " It's fun to violate the DEEEEEE M C AAA". Now if someone could come up with some other words for the rest of the song it would be appreciated. I've been violating the dmca since it came out and don't care what they say. I paid for it, it's mine, I'll do what I want with it.

By Proteusza on 12/18/2007 4:25:03 AM , Rating: 3
I hope YMCA isnt copyrighted, otherwise you are going to prison and may be liable for a $1 Billion Billion Dollar fine.

Do you know how hard it is for the record companies to leech off artists so they can buy private islands and customized Boeing 747s? When you lead a life as difficult as they do, you can make jokes about the situation.

By 1078feba on 12/18/2007 10:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
$1 billion billion = $1 kabillion

By Cerberus29 on 12/18/2007 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 2

Thats the funniest thing I've heard in a while.

Really did make me laugh.

By Donkeyshins on 12/18/2007 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Lucky for you, parody is protected speech under 'fair use' laws, so go for it!

By probedb on 12/18/2007 4:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
No it doesn't, it goes where I tell EAC to put it.

By DragonMaster0 on 12/18/2007 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
they are always going to be sharing it.

Only if you use sharing software in the first place. Otherwise, even if it's in your music folder, it's not shared.

By marvdmartian on 12/19/2007 12:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Nothing against you personally, but what sort of crappy ripping software are you using??

1. My software has settings, where I determine where the end result (my ripped mp3 file) ends up. In ~8 years of ripping music from my cd's, it has always gone where I told it to go, not to any default location.

2. My p2p software, if I were foolish enough to want to share music or videos (internet suicide these days, imho), also has settings, which allow me to determine which folder or folders I want to share.......and no others.

3. If you're so foolish to rip your music to your shared folder, and expect anyone with any knowledge about computers to believe that you did it mistakenly, and weren't aware of the fact that you were sharing it, then you deserve to lose whatever amount of money the court later decides you owe the RIAA.

Bottom line........if you share your music, you're breaking the law. If you're breaking the law, and aren't willing to accept the penalty, then you shouldn't be taking the risk. This guy was dead wrong, and there's really no defense against what he did.

'Nuff said.

By mindless1 on 12/21/2007 5:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
You started out good then showed your clear bias.

No, the guy wasn't "dead wrong". Law is not about right or wrong, it's about innocent or guilty. Always has been.

Basically you already had a bias in your mind and deliberately argued towards it. What a shame you go out of your way to be a hater, when the courts were already taking care of the legal issue without any further hate from us necessary, nor serving any particular purpose at all. It's kinda like you want an excuse to hate.

BTW there is a defense against what he did, which is his reason for doing it. What there is not, is a defense against the CHARGE when proven true.

By walk2k on 12/17/2007 8:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Placing something in a "shared folder" I assume means p2p since it's perfectly legal to share music amongst 1 household (ie a private LAN).

Also, minor point, Fair use does not include making copies for archival or convienence (format conversion) BUT that right is also guaranteed by copyright law (it's just erroneously attributied to "fair use" but that's ok we know what you mean...)

By cmdrdredd on 12/17/2007 8:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Then by the fact that it's legal to share music in your house, how is it illegal in their eyes to rip a CD to put it on an Mp3 player?

I don't know the specifics of the case, but is there proof that this person was uploading or allowing downloads of the music to outside parties? He could have put it in a share for his LAN.

By walk2k on 12/17/2007 8:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
I should say, it's legal to share the music, so long as only 1 copy is being used at any one time. Technically I guess if two people are listening to the same album in different rooms that might be infringing, but of course nobody would actually prosecute that... As long as you own the CD you can share it with your immediately family/household/etc.

Sharing with the entire world on the internet is quite different.

Doesn't matter what the RIAA says though, copyright law allows (1) backup copy for archival purposed AND format conversion for the sake of convienence (was originally meant to refer to things like putting your 12" records on cassette tape to listen in the car, but surely would be interpreted to mean ripping a CD to listen on your ipod/etc)

By Christopher1 on 12/18/2007 8:34:15 AM , Rating: 1
Well, they should make it very clear that sharing music and making copies for personal use with family members in your own home or a home you own and live in is fine, but NOT allowing people to download music over the internet.

Personally, I think that it is just time to have a base levy on internet service like they have in France (I think that is the country) where the media makers are compensated for any 'illegal' sharing that occurs.

I also have to say that I do not share my music folder in Vista, in fact I have DELETED Sharaza, Limewire, EMule and a few other applications from my computer because I didn't trust that they wouldn't share those folders without my permission or have a virus that targets them and makes them share my whole 'My Documents' directory.

By 1078feba on 12/18/2007 10:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
Normally don't buy into the "slippery slope" argument, but when it comes to government attempts to gain access to my wallet, I make a universal exception.

Allow the gov to levy such a, uuhhh, levy, and within picoseconds, you will have legislators drafting bills to tax all purchases on the web. Slippery slope indeed.

Was recently reading an industry mag that relates how Radiohead is doing with their totally free download of their latest album. States that the band has already made significantly more by doing it this way than through a label. As of the printing of said mag, the "price" paid, you can donate when you download if you so choose, was $6.00, or rougly a third of what you would expect to pay at any store or through iTunes, etc. Really goes to show you how much goes to ensuring that the label execs continue to be able to drive Bentleys and Aston Martins.

Can anyone help me out here? The moratorium on internet taxation was recently extended, IIRC. To when, exactly?

By MonkeyPaw on 12/17/2007 8:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed that, too, and I think you are right, so long as they are talking about some kind of public sharing.

Curiously, this article actually seems to be written backwards in a very key spot. Typically, we write in a "question-answer" format, not an "answer-question" format. IF you swap two statements in this article around, it reads like this:


The Judge’s question was, “Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an ‘unlawful copy’ of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?”

The RIAA wrote that “it is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies” – referring to the Howell’s collection of mp3 files made from their own CDs – and noted that “ once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.”

It sounds to me like the RIAA is saying that once a compressed audio track is made available via sharing, that they do not view this file as legitimate, since it is being made available to others without authorization. I don't think it has anything to do with compressing audio into any particular format--it's just saying that once you create the file AND share it, you are breaking the law, whether you legally purchased the music or not.

By numbnuts on 12/18/2007 2:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
So where does this leave Windows Media Center & Home Server ?

I wonder if any of these RIAA people actually own any disc's, I've got >1000 having them ripped on to my PC is only way of managing them, and finding the one you want (the discs themselves are in boxes in the attic).

I have my CD's in a folder on my hard drive, Windows is "sharing" my music on my network to my Xbox360 and my laptop in separate rooms, so if anyone other than me access the music am I now breaking the law ?

This whole thing is a load of nonsense. Yes there is illegal sharing going on in the world, but killing consumers & holding back technology isn't going to fix it.

By JustTom on 12/18/2007 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
Read the brief, the problem here is that Howell put the MP3s in his Kaazaa shared folder, where a RIAA spy company accessed the files and downloaded 11. The point is made numerous times that the problem was ripping the music tracks and making them accessible for downloading. This case, at least, is not one of hypothetical file sharing the RIAA spy company actually downloaded music from the Howell's Kaazaa shared folder.

So it is my guess that unless you allow people to copy your Media Center files over a p2p network the RIAA gestapo will not be kicking down your door.

By TomCorelis on 12/17/2007 8:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree with you; their specific statement says indeed "AND".

HOWEVER , many people -- including myself, on the first pass -- interpreted it as them condemning CD ripping as "unauthorized." Lexically, their brief tries as hard as possible to shift the focus on ripping part, not the shared folders part, and actually Wired spent a good amount of time analyzing that. Further, if you take Pariser's comments into account, one might think that RIAA tacked on the 'shared folder' part in the last minute. Even further, note again how they use "unauthorized" instead of "unlawful": Even the RIAA doesn't authorize CD ripping -- and their stance on it is quite clear if you look around -- and I think they tried to squeeze that in as much as possible. And, one more time, note the lack of the word "unlawful."

RE: Everyone forgets what AND means including Tom Corelis
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
By TomCorelis on 12/18/2007 2:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
At face value, you're right. But it's little things like this that help people predict the RIAA's larger direction and intentions.

By sxr7171 on 12/18/2007 4:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, fair enough. You might have a point that the RIAA wishes the iPod didn't take off and people didn't start ripping all their legally purchased music to their computers for use on their DAPs, but if wishes were horses...

Now it is too late, and the tides have turned. This isn't the 80s where you pretty much HAD TO buy your music (or dub it with two tape decks). They were on board when the iPod came out, many of their members were in bed with Apple, hence the iTunes store.

They just seems like a wounded animal that attacks anything these days and the sad thing is that people do get "bitten" by this sick, rabid dog that is the RIAA.

They just keep crying about a bygone era and wish that technology didn't appear that makes music more portable and transferable. Well, it's happened and it's partly their fault. Get with the times and offer us reasonably priced lossless downloads, or even CDs at reasonable prices. Give us options and maybe you'll start flourishing again. The old business model simply won't work anymore, just give it up. There's only so long you can cry and cry about milk that was spilled in the 90s.

All this makes me much less inclined to buy music anymore. Basically your article doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

By clovell on 12/18/2007 11:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
Don't underestimate lawyers' ability to screw the general public, Tom.

By umeng2002 on 12/17/2007 10:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I see what you are saying.

One side tries to mix simple backup and compression with massive p2p file sharing in order to try and stop legal copying and try and force a pay per listen scheme.

The other side tries to mix up the RIAA's attempt to stop massive p2p file sharing with trying to stop simple archiving and personal use in order to continue pirating.

As long as the RIAA keeps putting on the qualifier of sharing the music on a larger anonymous scale, I don't have a problem with them taking CHRONIC seeders to court. I hate them as much as the next human, but they do have a right to stop REAL pirates.

Frankly, they should just sell listening rights not attached to any physical medium. You could then get the content anyway you want.

By Proteusza on 12/18/2007 4:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
Quite frankly I dont see how they can legally enforce their will that it is illegal to copy your own CDs. Oh wait they can through lobbying, its so easy for them and they do it all the time.

In any case, if I rip CDs to my shared folder, I'm not forcing anyone to copy them. What if I go on a holiday to Jamaica and I want to listen to the music that I am legally entitled to? Is that not a good way of using P2P services?

Now, if someone else downloads my music, thats their problem. How do I know they dont have an appropriate license? Its like saying you cant keep your music CDs in your house because someone might break in and steal them, so you had better leave them with the record company.

By JustTom on 12/18/2007 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Its like saying you cant keep your music CDs in your house because someone might break in and steal them, so you had better leave them with the record company.

The situations are not even remotely analogous. First, when someone copies files from a shared p2p folder they are not breaking into anything, you invited them; second when files are copied you do not lose access to them, when CDs are stolen you do. RIAA contends Howell KNEW files were being copied from his shared folder and allowed it to happen. However you may feel about the RIAA and its tactics this is a clear violation of US law.

By Pandamonium on 12/18/2007 9:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that reporters write and think as logically as programmers. This is false.

By smokedturkey on 12/18/2007 11:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
Fook RIAA. As a matter of fact, FOOK all big corps. They brought it upon themselves. Piracy FOREVER!

By Screwballl on 12/19/2007 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
The point that RIAA is making is a gross over generalization that ripping leads to sharing, if we take out the legal "fair use" then the sharing will stop.

Unfortunately they are so dumb that they actually believe this crap. I have several GBs worth (8GB+) of "fair use" ripped music (both mp3 and FLAC) but at no point am I sharing it with anyone else. Not on CDs or file sharing or anywhere else. According to RIAA, I am a criminal because I did not buy these mp3s from an authorized source. Nevermind that half of them are public domain or was ripped from a disc that contained no copy protection. The other half may have been but as I still have most of the CDs, I am entitled to "fair use" for my own personal enjoyment and at no point does the music leave my possession.

The moment I get a DMCA notice or something of the like then all my media goes under PGP 256bit encryption. If they can't access it then they can't pursue legal options since my collection is not shared (except to other computers on my own home network that is only used by myself and my wife, no wireless connection in my house).

Any 1 who makes ripping software is liable...
By Esquire on 12/17/2007 6:50:38 PM , Rating: 3
apple is inbig trouble i broke the law and they helpped me

Every time i put a cd in iTunes it does say "do you want to illegally make a copy of this. "

Man i need to read those dialog boxes more carefully

RE: Any 1 who makes ripping software is liable...
By amanojaku on 12/17/2007 7:15:46 PM , Rating: 5
If the RIAA tells me I can't copy my music to any format of my choosing for personal use (meaning not for anyone else) then my answer is clear: I'm not buying any more of your crap. Which isn't too hard considering today's music (no offense meant to those who like it.)

Here's my take on it: About a year ago I bought a stack of CDs from Barnes and Noble. I played them once and loved them all. Then I shelved them for two months and did other things. I then decided to build a music jukebox using iTunes and a RAID array. I pull out all my music and copy everything, even stuff I hadn't listened to in years. One of those CDs in that two-month old stack wouldn't play. I thought it was my reader, so I popped it into another machine. Zip. Four machines later I was pretty sure this disc was toast. I contact B&N and ask if I can get a replacement, to which they replied "no, it's been more than 30 days."

Now, I could have raised a fuss, but it's only one CD. Imagine if someone stole all my music (unlikely, with all the OTHER stuff around, but I'm just sayin'...) That means I'm responsible for buying over $10,000 worth of music that I ALREADY owned? Piss off! Should I trust an online site to keep a record of all the music I purchased in case I need to download it again? Heck no! Sites get hacked all the time so why should I trust that to be safe? Give me the option to do my own backup! I have no problem understanding that music transfer is illegal (I work at a software company; data is our lifeblood,) but BACKUP should be my RIGHT!!!

By sxr7171 on 12/18/2007 3:54:36 AM , Rating: 3
I am in full agreement with you, in fact every CD I buy (yes, I still buy them but the RIAA's arrogance I want to stop) get's ripped into Apple Lossless and goes on my iPod where it is listened to primarily. They also exist in Apple Lossless format on 2 computers. I really doubt the RIAA has a problem with that (if they did I would pirate every piece of music I would otherwise buy just to stick it to the RIAA). What happened here is another DT author trying to grab your attention with a false headline. It's not like it's never happened before.

By DOSGuy on 12/18/2007 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think there's a class action lawsuit in the unplayable CD situation you described. Obviously you cause the copyright holder no damages when you make a backup of your music for personal use, so what is the real reason why organizations like the RIAA/MPAA don't want people to make backups? They don't have the right to assume that you're going to distribute your backups because you're innocent until proven guilty, and there's already a presumption of guilt built into the system: all blank media have a tax that compensates the industry for the piracy that may be committed with that media.

I'm incredibly careful with my CDs and DVDs, but they still get scratches on them. It is a fact of life that these optical disks will scratch during careful, normal use. The industry is depending on you to scratch your discs and need to replace them! Remember a few years ago when there were companies making "bullet proof" discs that were made of such hard plastic that they could only be damaged intentionally? Why isn't the industry using that plastic yet? Because they want your discs to become unplayable!

I submit that the music/movie/game industries are intentionally selling a defective product to force consumers to replace their discs. The technology exists to render discs unscratchable during responsible use, but has taken no steps to adopt that technology. They create license agreements that forbid backups under a presumption of guilt regarding the use of those backups to force consumers to use the original media until it becomes unreadable.

There's a lawsuit in this. Until the industry eliminates the need for backups by creating media that doesn't degrade through normal use, I'll backup whatever I damn well please. They're selling a defective product!

By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/2007 7:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the dialog should say,

"Do you want to help fight against injustice and tyranny?"

"The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution."

When something is inherently unjust, you must do what must be done. Ripping/sharing is no different than any other protest against tyranny and injustice.

In today's world, we need a Boston Rip Party where copies of all the ripped songs are uploaded onto the Internet, the modern equivalent of dumping them into the ocean.

By BladeVenom on 12/17/2007 8:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
They've already been uploaded to the internet.

Don't buy their over hyped junk. Also support independent labels and your local musicians.

By stepone on 12/17/2007 7:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually a very good point.

If the RIAA truly believes that is or should be illegal for people to copy their own legally purchased music for their own personal private use then why aren't they sueing Apple, MS & for that matter every MP3 player manufacturer?

Those MP3's had to at some point come from somene's CD ripped by software, so why not go after the software makers as well?

Why is it always Mr & Ms Joe Schmo getting sued?

Surely if you want to nip a problem in the bud you go after the proximate cause instead of just nibbling round the edges (war on drugs ring any bells of failure).

The answer is simple... regular people can't afford to fight back or if they do they won't be able to afford decent representation making it a pretty lopsided affair.

However if they tried that on with a big corp like MS (who gets sued all the time) their lawyers would have the RIAA for breakfast & have Jennifer Pariser crying in the corner by lunch.

At some point simple logic & fair use has to suggest that you have the right to listen to the music you've purchased on your own PC or MP3 player without being labelled a criminal. Its either that or make a hell of a lot of people lose their jobs & hurt music sales by outlawing ALL MP3 players/rippers including software & hardware.

RE: Any 1 who makes ripping software is liable...
By DM0407 on 12/18/2007 10:33:06 AM , Rating: 1
How about this, I'll just download all the illegal music and movies and then I just won't share it. Nah, I'll download music I don't even like just to make sure more people can get their hands on it.... Sue me.

In fact I will continue to share music, just like everyone else on the internet shares useful information. All these A-holes that are pushing this legal battle are making millions already and are just out to alienate the people who made them their money.

Music should be free, it shouldn't be something that you do to make millions of dollars, it should be a passion something you get payed to do so you can survive like the rest of the world. How come we never hear about the small bands that benefit from P2P sharing? Its always the assholes with the deep pockets that just want them deeper. I cant believe that this has even made it to court, it just shows the complete lack of understanding of what is important in this world?

By Spivonious on 12/18/2007 11:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
You contradict yourself.

Music should be free

it should be...something you get payed[sic] to do

Which is it? I can guarantee that 99% of musicians would stop being musicians if they weren't getting paid.

Official RIAA Response Letter:
By daftrok on 12/17/2007 6:56:28 PM , Rating: 5
Dear RIAA,

Fuck you.


The People.

RE: Official RIAA Response Letter:
By InternetGeek on 12/17/2007 7:02:04 PM , Rating: 5
Dear People,

I'll screw you a little bit faster and little bit harder.

It's called 'Servicing the account'. Get used to it.

Yours truly,


RE: Official RIAA Response Letter:
By zsdersw on 12/17/2007 7:42:32 PM , Rating: 5
Dear RIAA,

You need us more than we need you.

Try a more modern business model.

Your days are numbered.

Get used to it.

Yours truly,
The People

RE: Official RIAA Response Letter:
By Regs on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Official RIAA Response Letter:
By jconan on 12/20/2007 11:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Like those boycott gas stations antics. I suggest a boycott RIAA day where for 1 day no one buys music or listens to any music online or on radio. (Yes for Consumer rights and freedom to use their purchased goods or non-tangible items in a reasonable manner and solidarity!)

RE: Official RIAA Response Letter:
By FITCamaro on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
By onwisconsin on 12/17/2007 11:09:42 PM , Rating: 5
Dear RIAA,

A certain congressman from Idaho would love to meet you at the Minneapolis airport tommorrow. As for everyone else, we're tired of getting screwed by you guys.

- The People

Yet Again...
By ebakke on 12/17/2007 7:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Every time I hear anything about the RIAA, I'm tempted to stop buying music all together. I can listen to the radio, steal what I don't already have, and go to concerts when my favorite artists are in town.

It's just so irritating that there's no easy way for consumers to voice their disgust. In every other industry, if someone makes a crappy product or has too many strings attached to it, I just go somewhere else. The only realistic option in the this industry is to stop listening to music (which isn't realistic at all).

RE: Yet Again...
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/2007 7:24:05 PM , Rating: 1
There's a lot of non-DRM music out there, with specific rights given to the buyer for copying.

Some of this music is even high-def and sounds amazing when you have a good system.

Buy it. Instead of RIAA poison.

Yes, the larger challenge is spreading the word to the mainstream that there is other music available. But this awareness can be built one person at a time through word of mouth. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

RE: Yet Again...
By 9nails on 12/17/2007 7:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Even to the point of boycott. But the RIAA holds such a Monopoly on music sales that's it's hard to avoid them. To that extent, I wish the States would challenge the RIAA and break them up as they once challenged Microsoft and American Telephone & Telegraph. Then boycott could be simplified as we target a specific injustice of fair use.

On topic: I certainly don't recall reading any legal-ise on the last CD that I purchased stating that I couldn't rip it. I don't think the RIAssA can enforce their will without any prior agreements. To say that DRM is common knowledge would be a farce.

RE: Yet Again...
By onwisconsin on 12/17/2007 8:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
But (unfortunately) at&t is basically the former AT&T, just a new logo...

(Think Colbert...

RE: Yet Again...
By 9nails on 12/17/2007 9:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHA!!! Yes, very nice - quite a funny video clip!

The link didn't work, I guess it got shortened by DailyTech. I found it by searching for "ATT History" at YouTube.

RE: Yet Again...
By nekobawt on 12/19/2007 11:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
try removing the end parenthesis from the link.

well, that pretty much does it then.
By maverick85wd on 12/17/2007 7:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
I personally feel bad for the RIAA. Because if they think anyone would buy CDs after telling them they are no longer allowed to rip to their computer and put it on mp3 players, they have officially gone off the deep end. Their whole line of thinking makes me nauseous...

I was in 9th grade when I started using Napster (right about the time it started to get popular) and download to this day. And I really don't feel bad about it. Why, you might ask? Because I also spend more money on CDs than most people I know. It's the best way to make sure you aren't about to go blow 12 dollars on more of the commercial shit record companies are spoon feeding us these days. I buy CDs because I want a high-quality version on my computer and my iPod. If an artist only has one or two decent/good songs, I don't buy their CD because it's obviously crap. I have persisted purchasing CDs to support the artists, but I think for now on I'm just going to borrow music from my friends and rip it because I'm tired of giving these people money. If only more artists would do something similar to Radiohead... if I could download lossless music direct from the artist for a few dollars per album I would never look back.

RE: well, that pretty much does it then.
By 9nails on 12/17/2007 9:36:02 PM , Rating: 3
They think that they license the actual sound waves that music produces, and not just the technological format of the music. It matters not that you're from the Shareware generation and will convert to a sale after you've first tested and enjoy a product. (I applaud you for your honesty however.)

The RIAA wants you to pay for every listening experience you have with music. Even if that experience was crap and you're unsatisfied, they still expect you to pay for it. Satisfaction is not their goal. Getting wealthy from sales is. As far as they're concerned, the consumer shouldn't be educated and should only consume. No prior research or the understanding of value for that product is wanted. Just turn over your money.

By cmdrdredd on 12/17/2007 10:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
They should use the digital medium to make money then like Apple and MS and others do already. Instead of fighting mp3, offer HQ Mp3s to listeners who don't want a CD. IMo Cds are old.

By sprockkets on 12/17/2007 7:02:53 PM , Rating: 3
I guess it is illegal or unauthorized to play any cd in any computer since it now plays it by "ripping" it realtime to digital format then plays it over the sound card.

For that matter, I guess it is unauthorized to read the disc in any fashion unless said cd reader is made prior to 1988, back when say they had no digital output whatsoever to make "illegal" legal copies.

On a serious note, the home recording act allows for recording digitally, but then came the computer, with its ability to do it many times faster, without the requirement of needing MUSIC cdr media, and no requirement to follow the SCMS rules, aka, no 2nd generation digital copies. The only reason the law was able to pass is because of the computer exemption.

RE: Well
By mcnabney on 12/17/2007 10:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
It is actually now illegal to remember how a song went. By retaining and possibly humming a few bars to a friend you are violating their copyright.

FYI - by law, all music is work for hire. The label owns the rights, not the musician. Most nationally / globally published musicians do not own their label. So they can't sing the 'poor musicians tune' because the artist has already been paid.

By Holytrinity on 12/17/2007 9:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
I just ripped a CD to smite them. I feel so good now.

RE: Celebration
By amanojaku on 12/17/2007 9:29:55 PM , Rating: 3
I ripped a fart to smite them. I feel better! :-D

By psychobriggsy on 12/17/2007 7:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, choice for the RIAA:

1) CD is a physical product - you are allowed to do whatever you want with it once you have paid for it. That includes lending it, reselling it, etc.

2) You've licensed the content on the CD - you can do anything with the content from that CD within the terms of the content licence (unspecified at time of purchase) which will therefore be, in any sane person's definition - in that person's residence, on their person, and in the areas that they are present. Basically what people currently do with CDs now and with music since the gramophone came out.

I don't see the rich people that the RIAA supports getting poor. The bands are just tools to make those rich people richer, nothing is ever done *for* them, unlike their claims.

Support the bands you like - see them live and buy their merchandise.

By cmdrdredd on 12/17/2007 7:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few artists who independently release their music on a website hosted by them at their expense. They then allow the listener to pay whatever they feel is worth paying. Recently Radiohead did this if I'm not mistaken. The idea was, people WILL pay for your music if you let them do it on their terms. In fact, many people paid what it would cost for a normal CD in the store (before tax). A few people decided to pay nothing and just take it though. What does this show? There is a market outside of buying a CD at B&M stores. Of course we knew that thanks to iTunes, MSN Music, Zune Marketplace, Xbox Live, and Amazon. This is one time where I side firmly with Apple and Microsoft. They have software that can rip a CD to a digital music device (zune & iPod) and they both support artists by offering an alternative to a CD with a pay per song download. It can go both ways. Offer a convenient way to take your music on the go and also offer a way to obtain new music and promote aspiring artists and new top hits by offering them up for purchase and digital download. For their conrinued support of digital music (along with all the phone manufacturers and various Mp3 players) I am firmly behind them. Something I'd never have thought I would be saying.

By BMFPitt on 12/17/2007 6:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
As someone who has recently began purchasing music (excluding comedy CDs which I've commonly bought) legally again for the first time since the early 90's (thank you Amazon DRM-free), I am angered by this even more than usual.

I really wish there was a way that I could keep the convenience of legal downloading in such as way as to prevent any of my money from going to these asshats. I feel like I'm funding evil.

100% ridiculous
By Domicinator on 12/17/2007 9:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'll come right out and say it. The RIAA can sue me if they want. I rip every CD I buy to my computer. I'm not sharing anything on the internet, but I am sharing the files across my home network so that I can access them from anywhere in the house any time I want to. I also put the MP3 files on my Chocolate so that I can listen to them in the car or at work. Why do I do this?

Because we've finally reached the day and age that I always dreamed about where you can purchase music and have access to it anytime and anywhere. The industry has steered us toward this, and the RIAA continually tries to reverse it.

I don't download music, I buy CDs. I know that's old fashioned, but I like to have a hard copy of my music. I rip them to my computer immediately, and then I pretty much never touch them again because I don't really need to.

By SiliconAddict on 12/17/2007 11:33:18 PM , Rating: 2

RIAA and Reality
By Bluestealth on 12/18/2007 1:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the RIAA on the fact that when I purchased a CD I was not granted the right to make unauthorized copies for others. However, other than that, any other right they wish to deny me in my opinion is a legal fantasy. I will buy your music if you choose reasonable prices, and give me high quality copies in an non-DRMed format.

Hell I even buy sheet music, which to download, I had to use a DRMed viewer. However they allowed me to print one authorized un-DRMed copy. With that copy I am or should be allowed to do pretty much any damned thing I want bar copy it for others. This gives me the equivalent of what I could go out and buy, a high quality copy, with no DRM which I can do anything I want with.

The problem only comes about when they want me to buy a ridiculously overpriced CD for their one hit wonder. Sure they offer may offer me a poor to average bit-rate DRMed/non-DRMed digital download of that track, but its not a lossless un-DRMed copy. To get those I must get an illegal copy, or buy the whole damn crappy overpriced CD with maybe 1-2 tracks. That just isn't going to happen. Until they start giving consumers what they actually want, I will continue to take an liberal view of copyright law.

By mindless1 on 12/18/2007 4:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you even realize that these kinds of declarations make it almost impossible for me to buy your content?

In good conscience, I would rather set up a server to spread illegal downloads than allow even one cent to go to your organization.

This just reeks. If you refuse to offer the content in the format the customer wants, all the while maintaining a monopoly conspiracy, what did you expect to happen?

Take note, I am your paying customer, not some college kid with mostly MP3s. If you find it a problem for me to use my CDs on my chosen device, you have devalued your product to the point where I refuse it and demand you are out of business so a suitable replacement can offer products that meet my needs. I am willing to pay - for what I want and need, not for what you want to allow me to have while being a Nazi about it.

riaa picks good fights at times
By rika13 on 12/18/2007 5:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
instead of sueing companies who can afford crack legal teams, they beat up normal people; akin to a schoolyard bully beating the smaller kids out of their lunch money instead of getting into a fight with that one guy who can tear his head off

thing is all one has to do is ask UNDER OATH the RIAA lawyers if they rip music or know someone who does

cd-r is illegal now?
By rika13 on 12/18/2007 5:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
the say copying to cd-r is illegal

strange considering that MUSIC cd-r's have a part of the cost sent directly to the TIAU (terrorist industry assn. of unamerica) err riaa, thus making copying to music cd-r's legal since the riaa has been bribed

By sviola on 12/18/2007 8:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hey all,

As it seem that most people despise the RIAA, we should start naming the labels that are NOT members of the RIAA.

I've found two medium sized labels that are not members:

Century Media
Nuclear Blast

If you know others, post them!!!

Why RIAA doesnt want ripping
By pomaikai on 12/18/2007 10:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
RIAA does not want you to rip MP3's because it lowers the amount of music a person has to buy. Think about it. If it is illegal to rip an MP3 file you would then have to purchase an MP3 from walmart, amazon, etc. Then the RIAA would be getting paid twice for the same song. Maybe even 3 times if you bought the CD, then purchased song from itunes for ipod, and then have to purchase MP3 after ipod breaks and you decide to switch to a different MP3 player.

By rushfan2006 on 12/18/2007 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
I've decided after some thought and the RIAA rattle off at the mouth for years on end about copyright issues like this, its pretty much like the speed limit. Yeah technicially its illegal to drive over the speed limit, but pretty much anyone who has had a driver's license (well assuming everyone that drives has one is kind of a fantasy right there...but work with me here!) for more than a month has at least once driven faster than the speed limit. Its a kind of "crime" of you are only wrong if you get caught kind of think, and society doesn't really fault you much (as long as you didn't kill anyone, wasn't drunk doing it etc.).

Ripping music, using p2p sites, etc. pretty much like the speed limit -- at one time or another nearly anyone who is "hip" enough to search and use the Internet has probably downloaded a song or two (that they didn't pay for) or ripped a CD.

I think that the RIAA should chill -- the rule should simply be "as long as the music being listened to was paid for by at least one of the listeners AND they are not charging or in any way profiting off of its performance" its ok.

After all, unless you are a spaz - you are going to constantly have free performances of your DVD or CD collection 24/7/365.

By omnicronx on 12/18/2007 10:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
You know what else is illegal RIAA? Me burning down your building because you won't stop suing people for ripping their own CD's.

What about....
By DARGH on 12/18/2007 11:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
...burning purchased mp3s to an audio CD?
If the use of purchased audio becomes so legally complicated that the vast majority of citizens becomes criminals, someone needs to step in and make some changes....

RIAA - dude... not cool
By scrollocking on 12/18/2007 11:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think the good people here have already put up the obvious reasons why your logic is faulty.

Here's my humble 2 cents - sharing creates potential new customers. Believe it or not, people are dynamic entities that can become interested in new things. Sure, we all can try out new genre of music by buying random CDs or going to random concerts. In reality, I doubt many people would be willing to invest so much with our modern life style. Given the state of today's music, it might not be a bad idea to allow people to "branch out" versus loosing interest all together.

I myself have been introduced to couple new artists/bands that I probably would never know thanks to itune's "free of the day" thing. And yes, I actually bought a CD from those groups. No, not the compressed stuff that you re-resale...

Which brings me to another point -> SOUND QUALITY. It's bad enough that we're still stuck with Cd-quality @ 2 channels for the past 2 decades. All these compression stuff, while cool and all, is taking a step BACK in quality. I've never bought a compressed track and I never will, but I sure have paid for more than a few CDs. Hell, I've even tried to go for DVD-audio. For example, I actually bought the DVD-A of Supernatural AFTER I already bought the CD... am I crazy?! Nope - it was an excellent purchase. And I'd buy more if the stuff is actually available. Case in point - my local best buy recently canned the entire DVD-audio section. Nice!

And please RIAA... wake up. You'll NEVER win against people who want to pirate by alienating your entire customer base. You do NOT want to turn them into more pirates. Seriously, you retards need to learn from the tobacco industry. They got their customer base so hooked that they GOT sued by the government... that should be your goal!

Oh and also... it's not written in stone that the CD album business model is the RIGHT way. It's not written in stone that RIAA should exist. It's not even written in stone that we HAVE to pay for music. We pay because we want to support the artists and hopefully result in more good music, not because it's in our DNA or the bible says so. If we don't pay, no one would go into making music, and then no music for all. It's supply and demand. We live in a free society with capitalism and all that crap. So, if somehow you (RIAA) dies or get eliminated by social evolution, I am sure the artists will find a way to survive. You're like the dinosaurs staring up at that damn meteor, except you're not as cool and no one will want to genetically revive you in a deadly amusement park.

Actually, I'd pay good money to go to a park with cloned RIAA people... talk about target practice :)

By wwwebsurfer on 12/18/2007 12:48:25 PM , Rating: 2

I'm a friendly person, and I deleted all my limewire files over about 2 years ago. The only thing on my PC's and MP3 players are CD's I've got either at home or my apartment. However when they start doing crap like this it makes me want to pull down about 15 gig's of illegal stuff just so I can propagate it on the 12MB/sec connections here at college.

This is just outrageous.

By RAMDRPC on 12/20/2007 10:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well.. People who are programming of cracks or hackers can break it.

By RAMDRPC on 12/20/2007 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 2


By Luna M on 12/20/2007 10:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
If the RIAA doesn't want people ripping CDs...

...they should STOP MAKING CDS.

oh please
By SSJGohanMlm on 12/17/2007 10:42:42 PM , Rating: 1

what we need is a group of ppl to sabotage these assholes

By Slappi on 12/17/2007 11:38:21 PM , Rating: 1
I'm suing the RIAA for being fucking stupid.

The end.
By JKflipflop98 on 12/18/2007 6:17:30 AM , Rating: 1
I would ask that you all join me now in a total boycott of any and all RIAA-backed material. You simply can't go around sueing the pants off of single working mothers and 12 year old girls because you didn't make enough money to buy your 4th gold plated Ferrari with matching phillipino slave boys.

There is only one way this shit is going to stop, and that's by draining the financial resources of these douchebags until they can no longer afford to sue the people that buy their wares.


By excrucio on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft?
By SoCalBoomer on 12/17/2007 6:49:16 PM , Rating: 4
sure - blame it on MS, especially when WMP doesn't even rip into MP3 format by default. . .

Stupid RIAA. I BOUGHT IT and want to play it on my OWN computer and my OWN mp3 player. . .

I wanna puke.

RE: Microsoft?
By MrSmurf on 12/17/2007 8:00:52 PM , Rating: 3
sure - blame it on MS, especially when WMP doesn't even rip into MP3 format by default. . .

Why does it even matter what format it's in? A rip is a rip.

The RIAA can suck a fat dick. I'm re-ripping every CD I own just for them.

RE: Microsoft?
By Warren21 on 12/17/2007 8:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA can suck a fat dick.

I lol'd.

RE: Microsoft?
By Etern205 on 12/17/2007 6:54:03 PM , Rating: 1
Even if WMP does not include ripping function. People will still find another way. So suing M$ does not work.

RE: Microsoft?
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 8:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the sarcasm in the sue Microsoft comment. Point being that Microsoft probably wouldn't provide the facility on the computers of it's five zillion customers worldwide if it were illegal and open themselves to be sued by the RIAA for a few million dollars per-customer which I'm sure they fear tremendously (hint: more sarcasm :-).

RE: Microsoft?
By PandaBear on 12/17/2007 9:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
MS have way too many lawyers and cash to lose a trial with RIAA, RIAA wouldn't dare to fvck with MS.

RE: Microsoft?
By Oregonian2 on 12/18/2007 1:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the RIAA major members aren't US companies, and are heavily European, so the RIAA would probably get the help of the EU who likes to sue MS.

RE: Microsoft?
By mindless1 on 12/21/2007 5:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
There's a legitimate use for ripping non-copyrighted material and there is no DRM circumvention so MS has nothing to worry about there.

RE: Microsoft?
By mmntech on 12/17/2007 6:58:40 PM , Rating: 3
Can we include Sony in this as well, who enables CD ripping on their computers and PS3s, who's devision Sony BMG is a RIAA member. Sony should sue themselves.

Fortunately, there's nothing RIAA can do about this. It's patent infringement to put DRM on CDs since it violates Phillips Redbook Audio. If it doesn't bare the "Compact Disc: Digital Audio" logo, don't buy it. There's no way to enforce it either unless they want to sue everybody who owns or makes computers and MP3 players. The RIAA would be a huge joke if they didn't go around threatening people all the time.

RE: Microsoft?
By InternetGeek on 12/17/2007 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
I say we just start selling our CDs quite cheap and rip the hell out of them. That way RIAA won't get money from the existant libraries, and won't get money out of the digital downloads as people don't buy their stuff.

We can have them in a stranglehold in no time.

RE: Microsoft?
By Rookierookie on 12/17/2007 7:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA would be a huge joke if they didn't go around threatening people all the time.

What are they now - a very huge joke?

RE: Microsoft?
By Slaimus on 12/17/2007 7:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Microsoft?
By Arramol on 12/17/2007 7:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm is such an under-appreciated art...

In all seriousness though, if Microsoft weren't such a powerful corporation, I wouldn't put it past them to try. The RIAA has no problem with filing ridiculous lawsuits, they just try to make sure it's against entities that can't fight back. Notice how Harvard consistently fails to appear in the list of universities they're going after.

RE: Microsoft?
By Stark1 on 12/21/2007 2:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Screw it. I'm turning my home into a 50s movie, buy some sheet music and the whole family will sing together at the piano.

This vendetta by the RIAA just wears me out everytime I hear about it and makes me more resentful of any commercial music.

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki