Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I wouldn't be bothered by it, if they honestly accepted it as compensation for home recording and non-commercial sharing, like the law says.Howedar wrote:That blank CD royalty bit disgusts me.
Oh, post 5000.
Damaramu:According to this comment made on the Slashdot website, it sounds like the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on:
Quote:
Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
[cornell.edu]
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
[cornell.edu]
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyrigh ... /0018.html
[cni.org]
From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."
From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html
[cornell.edu]
Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.
Indeed: If the RIAA collected the tax and didn't bitch, I doubt anyone would give a damn. After all, the blank CD's are, at least partially, going to music, and it gives the artists money(Don't believe me? Published artists are encouraged to contact the government if they aren't getting their part of this kickback).Darth Utsanomiko wrote:I wouldn't be bothered by it, if they honestly accepted it as compensation for home recording and non-commercial sharing, like the law says.Howedar wrote:That blank CD royalty bit disgusts me.
Oh, post 5000.
The fact that they're taking our money from blank CDs but still calling us theives for 'not paying' for shared music is just plain dirty and two-faced.
That is just disgusting...Ryoga wrote:Hey, you guys hear this?
Stupid Fucks.
Apparently one of the 261 victims is a twelve year old girl. Wow, way to go fucktards, give people something to rally around.
However, this is a girl who goes to a private school and whose mother appears to own her own corporation, and it appears like she's bound and determined to fight this out. Way to go!
Holy shit, we should all write her letters of sympathy and confederation, as well as some advice on the AHRA and it's crippling of the DMCA...Ryoga wrote:Hey, you guys hear this?
Stupid Fucks.
Apparently one of the 261 victims is a twelve year old girl. Wow, way to go fucktards, give people something to rally around.
However, this is a girl who goes to a private school and whose mother appears to own her own corporation, and it appears like she's bound and determined to fight this out. Way to go!
I've got a question about that Dam, I argued the same point against someone on another board and he pointed out to me that the relevent section of code that's quoted only protects distrubition of (in addition to analog), digital audio recording medium and a digital audio recording device – not the distrubition of digital audio copied recordings.Damaramu wrote:For those who haven't seen this by now, I post it again:
<snip legal justification of file sharing>
