Note to Ipod users:

So if I'm expected to pay $1 a song, and my iPod holds 10,000 songs, I've got to spend $10,000 to fill it? I'm pretty sure that nobody (except the suits) expect that.

If you have a CD rack that holds 100 CD's are you expected to buy 100 CD's to fill it out?

If you have a CD rack that holds 100 CD's are you expected to buy 100 CD's to fill it out?

No, but if you fill that 100 CD rack and want to put those songs on your iPod, the RIAA expects you to buy those albums again in a different format.

Are you serious? What about if I've purchased and stored songs on my laptop and then transfer them to MP3 and then delete them off the laptop? Does that count as well?

This is getting ridiculous...you didn't have a purchase a song a second time to transfer from LP to casette...

I have recently commented on this subject.

Link 1.
Link 2.

I would appreciate any insight any of you have to offer.

@Maggie

Sadly, yes, hes serious.

Copyright laws are a little insane. It's the same way across the board with media like that. Music, VHS/DVD's, video games; etc. The rule technically is you're supposed to buy one copy per machine, per person who intends to use it. So, in the case of an iPod if you want to listen to music on it yet you have CD's you are expected to purchase the music in seperate format (Perhaps bought off the Internet for .99 a song or some other format.) instead of ripping the music off CD's you all ready own and putting it on the iPod. Nobody cracks down on this, but it is technically the law.

As for videos the law technically states you must own a copy for everyone you intend to show it to. Lending it to friends? Illegal. Again, nobody cracks down on people for this (at least as far as I've ever known.) but it is technically the law.

As a gamer I know some developers are beginning to force you to do this in a way. The recent outrage with Bioshock I believe had something to do with this. One copy per machine. If you own two computers you are expected to buy a copy for each one, it's insane.

"This is getting ridiculous...you didn't have a purchase a song a second time to transfer from LP to casette..."

You did when they transferred over from 8track - and I know I bought a couple CD's that I had in cassett or LP form...

"No, but if you fill that 100 CD rack and want to put those songs on your iPod, the RIAA expects you to buy those albums again in a different format."

Umm, you can copy songs from a cd to your iPod. You don't have to buy them all from iTunes. It is called fair use.

The RIAA's position is a little crazy here. I understand that piracy may be a problem and I think that folks who are uploading and downloading thousands of songs might be asking for trouble. But going after someone who only downloads 24 songs? That seems like using a nuke to kill a fly.

The RIAA should also realize that given the choice, people will use a service like iTunes to download music. It is fast and cheap, and you know what you are getting. As of this past July, Apple has sold THREE BILLION songs via iTunes. C'mon RIAA, get with the times. Downloading is the future. These are the same jokers that declared that the VCR would kill movie theatres when it was introduced back in the early 80's....

Naa, she had 1,700+ songs all told. They only prosecuted her for 24 though... I don't rememeber why.

I'm a little fuzzy, but with all of the FUD in the media it's hard to know what's real without being a lawyer.

Technically you should be able to rip a song off your CD to use on your computer or ipod under fair use. You can't give that to your friend or anyone else but if it's for you, you should be ok.

Things are a bit fuzzy because the RIAA does want you to pay for each instance of the song being on each device.

There was an interesting lawsuit earlier this year, where the judge said it was legal for Tivo users to swap/share their recordings with other Tivo users. Wish I had the link..

So bottom line is that there is a LOT of grey area, and laws/judgements going both ways.

Personally I'm glad iTunes came around. I'd rather pay $0.99 for 1-2 songs I like than $15-20 for an entire Cd filled with filler, just to market those 1-2 good songs.

ok...so I can purchase a song from itunes, download it onto my computer and then transfer it to my ipod and then delete from the computer and that's legal...

but if I purchase a cd and then copy 1 of the songs to the ipod, that's illegal, according to some ...

what a crazy, crazy world...

just doing something that makes sense ends up being illegal - and all without knowing.

what is that saying about the need to make new laws in order to make more people criminals?

ipod and mp3 player seem to be used interchangeably, although ipods account for something like 13% of the mp3 market last time i checked. for the money a psp is a home entertainment center/gaming console in your pocket. blah, blah, ipod fetish, blah.

RIAA is losing money chasing down people with no money to sue. They're like totally giving our biggest workfare business (lawyers) a bad name. Suits filing suits.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/03/riaa-our-antifan-law.html

Prince, Radiohead, and NIN are giving away music and a lot of bands encourage people to just download it to the point where 1 band I like was refused advance copy CDs because the drummer insisted he'd put them online immediately.

You can copy audio from MTV, youtube or nay other web site rather easily and turn them into CDs or mp3s, legally. that means all the singles, fangirl stuff, etc.

I haven't purchase a CD or DVD in a while. If I want music I go to the library, get a CD, and copy it to Windows Media Player. I have a Sansa that I copied some music to using the fuller .wma format, but I find that I don't take my media player with me as I once did because I perfer either the quiet of the Metroparks, or the chirping of insects or birds. I've asked my niece why she has to download tunes when she could wait a couple of months, and get the CD from the library. She is the kind of consumer these companies depend on -- about a third of her "disposable income" goes for the 99 cent latest "pop fave". Heck, I spent a couple of months about a year after I retired finding out about the music of the 80's and 90's that I hadn't bothered listening to. If it wasn't for the library I wouldn't have found out that "10,000 Maniacs" had some music worth listening to. So, thank the powers that be for libraries and Windows Media Player.

Back in the early to mid 70's I bought a really, really good receiver and a reel-to-reel tape deck. I think it was 104.7FM that used to do two albums a night. I would start my reel-to-reel, and the next day listen to the music as I transferred it to a cassette. A lot of those cassettes I only listened to once. I got to hear a lot of different artists (though some of them probably sounded better through the maryjane-induced fog of a party than they actually were). I am not sure if I saved any money when I consider the time I spent tranferring from reel-to-reel to cassette, but when I sometimes play that old album it takes me back to a particular night, and the feelings a particular song evoked...

so, OSEB, does copying those library cds violate the law, as you didn't actually purchase them?

btw- agree about 10,000 Maniacs...

Ok the RIAA is wrong in their belief and in pushing against being allowed to copy music you already own into other formats for personal use, Fair Use is a part of the copy right law. However what they understand is that I make a copy of my music claiming fair use for a friend, then that person makes a copy to give a someone else, thats stealing (both instances) and not covered by fair use. Now realistically prior to copying methods being so good when copying to tape made a slightly imperfect copy, and copying the tape degraded sound more, record companies knew (although still didn't like it) that there were limits to how long a copy chain could be. They also knew that this was a way artist got exposed to new listeners, who often times ended up purchasing either the album that was taped for them or other albums the artist made. Today you can make CD quality copies indefinitely, and although when napster was happening a lot of people would later buy CD's of artists, rather than wait forever for a download or crappy quality, what they learned was music should be free,and downloading it doesn't hurt anyone, (but it does, it hurts the artist, it hurts the record companies who invest in artists).

Same with copying from CD's borrowed from the Library, or taped during a show, or off the radio whether its to reel to reel, to tape, another cd, or MP3, or similar data file. Its stealing unless someone who controls the rights gives you permission.

I agree with Chilidog, I think the traditional record company is on its way out, however that does not give anyone the right to steal music. I applaude Radiohead, but what they have done is their decision, and should not be foisted upon others who do not want to work that way. ANd it is infinitely easier to do what Radiohead is doing when you have a huge world following than it is for some small midwest band.

I see your points, roygbiv, but so much of the way this shakes out doesn't make sense. I can see how people could argue that it isn't right to make copies of library cd's, but would it be right for you to purchase a new cd for $11, copy it to your computer and then sell it to someone for $11, who is going to copy it to their computer and sell it, etc.? Or what about purchasing used cd's? In both cases, the record company got their money at the beginning and won't receive anything else down the road.

Ace_Face if you sell your original CD or give it away, you no longer own the right to have the copies. In your example it is true that the record company made money on the original sale, however what was stolen was the ability to sell the CD to who you gave it to or sold it to, meanwhile you still have a copy so there are two copies now, owned by diffrent people but only one was rightfully purchased.

After someone broke into my car and stole all my cds I started to copy my cds and only used/kept the copies in the car so that if they were stolen again I wouldn't be losing.
Its been my understanding that you are allowed to make a back up for your own use.
I've also copied most of my CDs onto my iPod.
The RIAA can kiss my big ass if they don't like it.

The RIAA will never win a case in which they target a person who copies a song from a CD they legally purchased onto their MP3 Player or iPod, unless that person DISTRIBUTES the song to other people, digitally or otherwise.

The RIAA lawyer quoted above might want to read how the RIAA explains the their interpretations of the law on their very own website: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

From the page:

"Copying CDs

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.

It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

-The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

-The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make."

jmleong - I understand what is stated on their website ... but it appears that the woman whose testimony was quoted in the original article needs to refresh her own understanding of this...

:)