AfterDawn: Tech news

Update: RIAA fights back against accusations

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 03 Jan 2008 17:08 User comments (23)

Update: RIAA fights back against accusations On Sunday, we reported that the RIAA was fighting to make CD ripping illegal.
CNet and a few other news sources are saying however, that Marc Fisher (the Washington Post reporter who originally wrote on the subject) was incorrect in his assessment of the case at hand, that of an Arizona man by the name of Jeffrey Howell who is accused of sharing unauthorized music.

After the story hit the internet, an RIAA spokesman rebutted the story.

"The Washington Post story is wrong,"
said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

The trade group then went on to say that Howell had ripped the music to his computer, then placed the ripped tracks into a "shared folder" of a P2P application, basically meaning he had ripped the tracks with the intent to distribute illegally.

Fisher did not back down however, sticking to his story and even responding to the latest RIAA announcement.

"The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."

"Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base,"
he added.

Source:
CNet

Previous Next  

23 user comments

14.1.2008 1:09
vinny13
Inactive

Bastards.

24.1.2008 2:39

STFU

34.1.2008 9:06

Quote:
"Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base,"
Alienated consumer base? Wow, that's what they want to call it? What a bunch of hypocrite a-holes.

44.1.2008 11:04

you know they have damn well thouht about it and sine they have a loathing hate for consumer rights they could well do it, them lobbying to make it illicit dose not matter since time after time they have done things agist the consumer.

54.1.2008 12:31
atomicxl
Inactive

The RIAA hasn't done crap to hurt consumers. Its the opposite. Consumers have gone out of their way to hurt musicians and people who create art. Due to anonymity and the ease of transferring media in the digital age, consumers have wild expectations about what ok. Outright theft has been deemed a "right".

It helps if you don't think of these things as files, but think of them as physical objects. Would it be ok to goto Best Buy and steal CDs and DVDs? Even if the sales person wasn't paying attention and there weren't video cameras so it was easy to steal, would it be legal? Would you say that the RIAA is anti-consumer when you get arrested for shoplifting? If so, lol, the consumer who steals product rather than buy it is not the type of consumer anybody wants.

64.1.2008 12:53

Originally posted by atomicxl:
The RIAA hasn't done crap to hurt consumers. Its the opposite. Consumers have gone out of their way to hurt musicians and people who create art. Due to anonymity and the ease of transferring media in the digital age, consumers have wild expectations about what ok. Outright theft has been deemed a "right".

It helps if you don't think of these things as files, but think of them as physical objects. Would it be ok to goto Best Buy and steal CDs and DVDs? Even if the sales person wasn't paying attention and there weren't video cameras so it was easy to steal, would it be legal? Would you say that the RIAA is anti-consumer when you get arrested for shoplifting? If so, lol, the consumer who steals product rather than buy it is not the type of consumer anybody wants.
hasn't done crap to consumers? stifling prices not fairly splinting profits with artists not changing wit the times not understanding that "files" are the new radio and gives them unlimited free advertisment at the cost of actuality WORKING to sell music.

Don't even try to defend them not after the attempt to ban the sale of used CDs in the 90s the "indutry" is in business to protect itself and its corrupt contracts with fresh meat its in no way or form about artists.

74.1.2008 13:36

Quote:
Due to anonymity and the ease of transferring media in the digital age, consumers have wild expectations about what ok. Outright theft has been deemed a "right".
Just a smokescreen and bull$hit excuse for corporations to track people and their "goods".

After I pay for it..its mine. Try to take it from me and you'll get a friendly greeting by Mr. Reaper (who is *not* your friend!).
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Jan 2008 @ 13:40

84.1.2008 14:10

This is Clintonian parsing at its worst.
Notice he specifically mentions the public brief.
Fisher is experienced enough to know the difference.

94.1.2008 14:24

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
you know they have damn well thouht about it and sine they have a loathing hate for consumer rights they could well do it, them lobbying to make it illicit dose not matter since time after time they have done things agist the consumer.
I find it highly unlikley zippy,it would mean the RIAA would be up against the likes of micorsoft (they provide the software to rip in their OS's ),then you'll have Apple etc,it's a fight the RIAA would never win just like illeagal file sharing ..lmao..

104.1.2008 14:32

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
you know they have damn well thouht about it and sine they have a loathing hate for consumer rights they could well do it, them lobbying to make it illicit dose not matter since time after time they have done things agist the consumer.
I find it highly unlikley zippy,it would mean the RIAA would be up against the likes of micorsoft (they provide the software to rip in their OS's ),then you'll have Apple etc,it's a fight the RIAA would never win just like illeagal file sharing ..lmao..

your not seeing it through sony is part of the mafiaa but they would never be touched in this either because they are focusing on speffic software (ripping and burning software) hardware and OS makers would be untouched its the lower companies and consuemrs that would be assaulted in this maneuver this is to profligate and entrench the big guys and diminish the lil ones.

114.1.2008 16:53
atomicxl
Inactive

It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Jan 2008 @ 16:56

124.1.2008 17:21

Quote:
Quote:
"Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base,"
Alienated consumer base? Wow, that's what they want to call it? What a bunch of hypocrite a-holes.

I agree, and to add my 2cents, do we really need this org?

134.1.2008 17:24

Quote:
"The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."
To me this is contradicting terms. You can not have both.

144.1.2008 17:50

Originally posted by atomicxl:
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.
Prices are only down because they would not sell one album if they kept the prices high, its not like they wanted to drop prices, they were forced to :)

154.1.2008 19:35
WierdName
Inactive

Originally posted by atomicxl:
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.
Ya, prices are cheaper now because people are starting to switch over to online, LEGAL downloads. Of course, this doesn't sit well with the RIAA so they force companies to use DRM, which has since be mostly removed by major companies, then the RIAA fights the consumer by trying to make CD ripping for personal use illegal. Of course, that resulted in the RIAA having to get their spokes people to try to spin it off as something else; CD ripping for uploading. That is completely retarded by the way, because you don't know if someone has intent to upload until they actually do it. Then they breaking the law by uploading. So the only conceivable purpose for making CD for uploading illegal is to be able to slap more fees on someone when they get caught and therefore, more money to the RIAA...

164.1.2008 19:59

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by atomicxl:
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.
Prices are only down because they would not sell one album if they kept the prices high, its not like they wanted to drop prices, they were forced to :)
Exactly. Our entire economy is set up in such a way that supply and demand are not the end all and be all of modern comerce. It's dig for as much as you can, and drop prices when customer's realize it for what it really is.
You see it all the time. Big blow-out sales on normally high priced items aren't dropped below the margin of still making a profit...just less of a profit.

Trying to side with the RIAA and say that cd prices are reasonable is almost laughably a joke. Trying to side with the artists, who make jack crap from album sales doesn't really fly either.

The RIAA is doing their best to strangle everything possible from every possible angle with a complete disregard of fair practice and consumer rights to go along with it.

Disagreeing with the truth does not in turn make it untrue.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Jan 2008 @ 20:12


174.1.2008 22:42

It's all about the money. If the RIAA had to give to the artists in question 100% of any monies won in these lawsuits, you would see the lawsuits fade quickly away.


Vulcan94

184.1.2008 23:21

The only people who would defend current music prices, and the RIAA by extension, are mostly useless little parasitic producers for Country, Rap and Hip Hop wannabe "artists."
They've seen how their market is drying up, they know that it's because people are tired of the same old talentless noise, but want to blame it on people not buying their ridiculously overpriced albums.
It's a fantasy.

194.1.2008 23:27

Quote:
Originally posted by atomicxl:
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.
Prices are only down because they would not sell one album if they kept the prices high, its not like they wanted to drop prices, they were forced to :)
You are 100% right.
The albums suck and are overpriced. They don't sell, so they go to the cutout rack. It's not charity. It's conservation of space and an attempt to recoup investment.
Country Pop is dead, Hip Hop is deader, Rap is deadest of all.
Yet the labels, "artists" and the producer parasites who shout support for the RIAA are mostly from these categories.

206.1.2008 13:46
ali2007
Inactive

Originally posted by atomicxl:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.



do you work RIAA

216.1.2008 13:51
ali2007
Inactive

do you work for RIAA

2215.1.2008 12:23

Originally posted by atomicxl:
It seems like most of you still think the RIAA is trying to ban CD ripping. *Shaking my head...

LOL @ stifling prices. CDs used to start off at 14.99... Now a days you can get a brand new album for $9.99 when it first comes out. Thats 33% less. Your argument is based off of fantasy more than reality.
some cds are 9.99 when they come out, but would you pay 10 bucks if you only like one song? and if you try to download it via itunes or so, then it costs 2 bucks a song, which is also a further rip off. i dont necessarily agree with downloading tons and tons of (free) music (i.e entire cds and such) but i can't agree with the way these artists are distributing their music. if only they'd have like maybe hit songs (that make it to the radio or so) available for free download on a world-wide ftp server or so, it would atleast halfway diminish the "lesser" file-sharers who just once and a while hop on to get a song they just heard. those "once-and-again" types make up probably 30+% of the file-sharing group.

2316.1.2008 0:42
WierdName
Inactive

This is kinda of off topic but I think it's funny that there's a greater than sign before the RIAA indicated that they are less than. Back on topic in response to the post above me, yes. There are many people that use less than legal means to get songs they have just heard on the radio or whatever. Also, if albums were cheaper, I bet people would actually buy them. I, for one, could care less about paying some $10 for an album with one song I actually want. Of course, after paying for those other songs, I end up listening to them but usually could care less about them. I usually just want what I want and not have to pay for all the others that I don't.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive