NEWSFLASH: ILLEGAL TO RIP CDS TO COMPUTER

All I have to say is, Wow.....
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] s_illegal/

that's complete garbage.

if they actually did enforce it, half the world would be chucked into jail.

kinda ironic, how they so love suing the artists fans. almost like they encourage you not to buy their music... and pirate it instead

both are illegal anyway, so why bother paying?

---
NB - before someone lectures me, i do purchase CDs legally, but i'd be first in line to purchase a shotgun, if a RIAA moron came knocking on my door.

Call me guilty because I rip all my CD's to my hard drive.

EDIT: Yeah, dmacfour, they would have to sue Microsoft because I use WMP11 to rip my CD's to the hard drive.

I've done about 5,000 myself. I mean, what's the point of buying CD's if you can't rip them to the hard drive anymore?

Should I start saving up money for a legal defense fund?

I think the RIAA should make it their crusade against technology. They should file a suit where all digital music players are illegal, cease production of all CDs and put an eternal ban on such technology.

They should make it their mission to revert everything back to the good 'ol classic LPs. That way if you wanna make your music portable, you will need to strap on a turn-table and listen to your LPs while walking down the street.

Does copyright law actually say anything about possession or creation of "unauthorized copies" or are they just making this up as they go? IANAL, but I think a lower court would be hesitant to make a serious amendment to copyright law, even if such a power was in its jurisdiction.

Ripping your Tom Petty album to your PC must be interfering with RIAA executives' frequency or quality of sex/cocaine parties.

to hell with the bastards that dare try to fine me for trying to put my favorite cd's on my ipod...

Clearly, the governments need to updated their copyright laws to suit the digital era...

and fire the arses of the MPAA and RIAA.

This is getting ridicules, it’s been said in this thread before but, if they go through with this and it becomes illegal, they will: make fare use questionable; open the door to having any copy other then the CD Illegal; Make is so that you can’t rip your cd’s to your computer to put them on any music device; Make home stereo systems that stores music to play mostly useless; open the door to music bought (and downloaded) online, questionably illegal; make the music playing ability to most phones, PDA’s and any other electronic storage device (even some game consoles) mostly useless; bring into question the ability to use computers to play the music they can play; make it impossible for online radio stations to play music (since many use a high compression program to store and broadcast music); and drive many customers away from those companies that participate or associate with the RIAA.

I actually read the brief, the shared folder they are talking about is a kazzaa folder. The objection the RIAA had was to the sharing of the files not the ripping. The RIAA had a security company actually download files from the computer in question. No where does it say simply ripping CDs is illegal. Although, random RIAA and recording execs have muttered such nonesense before.

No, you're title is wrong, ripping CD's to your computer for personal use is still legal under "fair use" policies. The RIAA is trying to find a different angle to challenge "fair use" because it's always been shot down on this front. The RIAA says nearly everything is illegal.

But if a book publisher tried to tell you it's illegal to read a book at the library, would you believe it? Fair Use is even less liberal than that because it applies to only a single person-you.

Ah, but I think you're skipping over the problem: The RIAA is trying to undermine Fare Use by slipping one past the judge: Starting with the illegal file share and then hoping to bootstrap -any- copying of music to a hard drive in the judgement. Such trickery would be used to set a precident in future cases.

well, if the RIAA is able to undermine far use with the help of this law suit, then even 3rd party programs would become illegal to use, and may be forced to be modified or removed.

I don't see a problem with sharing music on a home network, being that you could arguably want to be able to listen to your music anywhere in the house.

My opinion is that it should only be illegal when it's shared to someone other then the owner of the original copy/content.

in the last year i began ripping my legal cd's. i also began file sharing. if the riaa thinks this is whats killing them, i'll help. i want them to die. they think this will kill the music industry. it wont. it will simply force them to adjust to consumer demands. the way it should be. same with mpaa.

there will always be someone with a mic that thinks they can sing or play an instrument. but 50 and em will have to find another way out of the sewer. mabee one buisness sector will return to "do what you love and let the money come". rather than "all your media are belong to us".

same with all IP. copyrights are no longer encouraging anything. it is choking and stagnating us. look at china, toss IP out the window and watch you country prosper. i dont want to debate the lack of personal freedom. it is a simple observation. the days of college kids in a garage comming up with new tech are gone. if they tried to release it, they would be hit with multiple patent infringement suits, right out of buisness. that is, if they live in the US or country subject to copyright law[/rant]

just curious, how much of vista's code is devoted to drm? or the latest game? or any software/media?

Currently, the fair use policy allows the producer of the information in question, whether cd/dvd/etc... to be the one to decide the policy of their software/music/etc...

For example, Company A produces a CD. They don't care if you rip it. You can copy it unlimited times, for backup purposes and personal use.

Company B produces a CD, and they put the warning on the disc, that states "Do not lend or make illegal copies of this disk". This is where you could get into trouble for copying it, even to your HDD. You should read the fine print of the license agreement before making copies of these discs, to determine what the producer will allow.

This is because you are not technically purchasing the music/software/etc.... You are only licensing it, and your license can be revoked by the producer at any given time, for breach of contract. You have to read the fine print in legaleeze to catch that part... Thus, the producer can dictate how many copies you can make, and still be legal.

The biggest problem with all of this, is that we, as a society, have allowed companies, such as recording companies to dictate to us, the licenses that we can use. The negotiation system has been almost completely negated. These companies (AND the RIAA) want it this way. That way they can control their products. Imagine if we all said, "We won't purchase your product until you negotiate the license agreement with us!". After all, license agreements must be "agreed" upon by both sides of the issue...

They can NEVER stop people from pirating.... NEVER.... hackers are always finding ways to break copyrights, etc.

PS: Just run Linux + Proxy + IP Blocker. Gotta love Linux

ok, I didn’t read it but... so it is illegal for me to make a backup to my computer with the intent to never share the data and only use it for my personal use only?

^May be we should have a poll on how many ppl hate Apple/Ipod/Macs ?

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] apple-macs

Basically What I was going to say.

THEY ARE NOT SAYING RIPPING CDS IS ILLEGAL. THEY ARE SAYING RIPPING THEM AND THEN PUTTTING THEM IN A SHARED FOLDER IS ILLEGAL.

(I hate typing in caps but it's sometimes the only way to get people attention.)

the RIAA sucks monkey balls

of course, i think that making backups should be fair use. having said that, the argument above isn't compelling given that media isn't warranted to last forever. further, typical lifetimes of various media are widely known. as long as the content is usable during the medium's typical lifetime, you've received what you paid for (and knew you were paying for). otherwise, i have some LPs, videotapes, photographic prints, magazines and newspapers that i want replaced for free - forever.

on the other hand, software vendors frequently replace licensed software if media becomes unusable, for not much more than the cost of new media. perhaps that should be the parallel requirement placed upon music publishers.

The best part of the article....

RIAA
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry.

They are nothing to us in Canada.

Ahahaaaaaa they are ignorant to the law. Ripping your own paid for music to your own computer or MP3 device is not making illegal copies. All it is doing is changing the format of the music. Making illegal copies is selling another one-to-one copy of it at a street corner or ripping it and selling it over the internet. Those who share the music over a p2p are the ones breaking the law. I guess you can look at it 2 ways is the person sharing it breaking the law or the personal downloading it for free?
Personally its both people I would guess just in different aspects/viewpoints of the law. But for this legal battle they are waging, I LAUGH !!!