Nothing like getting a 750GB hard drive in the mail from a good friend loaded up with albums and albums of high bit rate DRM free mp3s.
...theoretically speaking of course.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Thomas: hmmmmm. Now I know why Seagate sponsors my show! :-)
Aaron Brethorst
· 1 year ago
wrt #2: great, because we should trust Apple far more than the RIAA. Sure, whatever. I may be typing this on a MacBook while waiting for a phone call on my iPhone, while listening to music coming from my Mac mini across the room, but I will never trust those people. Apple acts in Apple's best interest. I'd rather have stacks of CDs in my closet, lawsuit or not. Besides, Arcade Fire doesn't come in high-bitrate formats on the iTunes Music Store.
wrt #6: So has William Gibson. Go read Spook Country. It's been done. Actually, I've read stories about pirates in APAC who overnight each other hard drives in lieu of using BitTorrent or FTP. A rather novel concept, to be sure.
Aaron Brethorst
· 1 year ago
Thomas beat me to the punch by eight minutes on my second point :)
Ael
· 1 year ago
And I thought you were actually against the RIAA... Oh wait did I miss something? lol... Great post.
Matt
· 1 year ago
The kids are trading iPods all the time and the Soliders in Iraq are getting hard drives sent to them full of movies and Music and they set up a Wi-Fi acess point in camp and trade over thier own networks .They also top up those hard drives with pirated DVDs and CDs they find in the Bazzars in Iraq and porn.
BigPete
· 1 year ago
Hard drives in the mail?
Great! Now the RIAA is going to sue the postal service just like they do the torrent sites.
Eric Anderson
· 1 year ago
(Funny Comments)
I have the solution to the RIAA's problem. Before artists even become signed and lodged into the red tape of the "Music industry", let them manage their own career right on areunice...(launching on the 28th)
The Entertainment Portal for the World where artists can control their own destiny...
Thanks,
Eric
k1v1n
· 1 year ago
You can never go wrong with snark. Funny!
dawnkey
· 1 year ago
I think both sides go too far and expect too much.
Companies want to force us to have to buy the same song or movie over and over again in different formats. That stinks.
But I also think it's over the line to expect that people should be able to "do whatever I want to with it" -- like giving away copies of a movie for free or using a song in a Flash animated movie without the creators' consent.
Both sides are going to have to compromise. I don't think creators' rights should be trampled just because the powers-that-be in their industry get too greedy. Creators need to be fairly compensated, and no, that doesn't mean everything has to be free but the tickets to their live concerts and their merchandise.
Matt G
· 1 year ago
Thank goodness I read the whole post. The first sentence got me scared.
And while many might not agree with people like Trent Reznor...I find him 100% right with his view on the industry. He got to the point where, when returning to Australia (read link below), he said for everyone to steal his music!
The original problem with his album (year zero) in Australia.
Dawnkey, I agree with you. I do think that I should be able to do whatever I want, outside of illegal sharing or use without content, with the music I legally purchase.
When It Comes to Copying Music, What’s Okay … And What’s Not:
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: o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own o 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.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
Scoble,
Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I'm no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD's to "the mp3 format" and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context.
Douglas Karr
· 1 year ago
When did music become synonymous with lawyers, digital rights, copyright and CD sales? It's just plain sad what greed has turned an industry into.
Karen
· 1 year ago
I think owners of CDs should be able to rip them (for their own use), but I am oh so tired of this tired "Britney Spears" joke.
A few years ago, I listened to a lecture by Lawrence Lessig, and he made the exact same Britney Spears joke, as a way of side-stepping whether people should be allowed to "share" CD rips. It was irritating, because here he is, presenting his issues in a thoughtful manner, then when the big elephant in the room is dealt with, he dismisses it with a lame joke, and never dealt with that particular issue again in his talk.
DAG
· 1 year ago
Aside from all of the heat & flashes of light, the RIAA member companies seem to be in deep denial about how the very nature of their business has changed. The disruptive technologies that have brought us to this point are genies out of the bottle and aren't going to go back easily, if at all.
Every one of these companies has changed hands in recent years, saddled with debt calculated against projected earnings based upon the 'good old days' when they got fat selling baby boomers their record collections all over again on CD and their video collections on DVD. I have news for you people, whatever the law says or is stretched to say- the gig is up.
Maybe the shareholders of these public companies should sue the executives of the MPAA/RIAA for failing to perform due diligence as to the financial aspects of their mergers/buy-outs/take-overs. Executives and Directors have an obligation to make decisions based upon accurate and realistic data and analysis. It's not the consumer's fault that their pie in the sky projections are flat wrong.
Maybe when they start developing musicians instead of rappers the market will change. Not my problem.
Tek
· 1 year ago
Thanks to the RIAA for reminding me why I started a blog against a software company trying to charge legitimate users to use it since, well, they might be pirates:
The RIAA and MPAA are getting so greedy about the mere thought of any lost revenue what so ever that they are starting to flail wildly out of control. Will they ever learn how to properly conduct their business with the changing times or are they just going to keep going until they have nothing left?
charlesfrith
· 1 year ago
Unrelated Robert but it looks like your blog is blocked from here in China. I'm doing a few digital backflips to get access.
Also I think Qik is not available outside the U.S.
Happy new year.
Caustic Dave
· 1 year ago
All the more reason to go back to that stash of 8-track tapes we have stashed in our garages. Long live Foghat! :-)
Doc Searls
· 1 year ago
VRM is about two key things: 1) Independence, and 2) Engagement.
We don't get independence from suppliers. It's something we get from ourselves, and that enables us to deal with *any* interested supplier on our terms — and not just theirs. Therefore VRM is not something that suppliers give us. So, while Radiohead did the right thing by letting the market determine what its music is worth, its relationship system is still a silo'd one. Meaning it only works with Radiohead. We need a system that allows us to pay any artist whatever we feel their music is worth to us. Independently.
Which means we need terms of engagement that live on the buyers' side of the marketplace. That's what I was suggesting a few months back, for example, with A Public Market for Public Music.
The new music business must be one that enables non-coercive "willing buyer/willing seller" mechanisms that are universal rather than silo'd separately by each supplier, each with their own terms of engagement. That's what we have today with the zillion different CRM systems that inhabit the world — all of which control "relationships" with buyers entirely from the seller's side. Without VRM on the buyer's side, the terms of engagement will still be set by the seller.
(Is 'newest first' comment listing a particularly Linux thing?) ;-)
Louis
· 1 year ago
It seems pretty obvious to me from these comments that none have read the actual briefing. It doesn't say the RIAA wants to prevent is from copying music for your PERSONAL use. The case involves copying music then SHARING it with the world. No different than me buying Robert's book, taking it to Kinko's, making hundreds of copies andhanding it out on the street corner.
Shelley
· 1 year ago
Jerry:
"Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I’m no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD’s to “the mp3 format” and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context."
+1
The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD. Howell initially submitted a defense that the music was legally purchased and he ripped to the computer for personal use. At that point some mysterious entity then moved these files to his Kazaa directory without him knowing of the fact. However, he could provide no proof of such entity.
It was the movement into the Kazaa directory and hence making the items available for distribution that triggered the suit.
MiB are not going to be jumping out at you as you walk down the street, listening to your iPod. Well, they won't because of the music you're listening to.
Facts, people. I know facts aren't fun, but can't we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?
Jerry
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the voice of reason, Shelley. So much for the accuracy and reliability of "citizen journalism". And people complain about the accuracy of the MSM? Sheesh. But will Scoble or any of these bloggers admit to not knowing the facts before posting? Unlikely. Just another "drive by shooting" from Scoble in order to get links and attention.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Jerry: I'll admit it. On this post I was going off of what I saw on TechMeme. Now I see a ton of those bloggers backtracking (like Engadget).
Jerry
· 1 year ago
@29 Well, I guess the adage "Don't believe everything you read" applies to the blogging world, too. Too bad most bloggers don't apply it. Most are more interested in getting linked to than getting facts straight.
Paul Joyce
· 1 year ago
Yes, Engadet backtracked (as they should have) about the basis of the original lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that Robert's post isn't spot on or that the RIAA is not making an additional argument in Howell that ripping is not allowed. This is in contradiction to their position in Congressional testimony and in oral arguments in the Grokster case. Ray Beckerman did a detailed analysis when the supplemental brief was first filed that is worth reading:
@33. Certainly interesting, but Mr.Beckerman, by his own admission is theorizing that the "and shared folder" language was added after the first draft. So, all this is is Mr. Beckerman's opinion. What we do have as fact is the actual briefing, which clearly states the RIAA charges that the files were unauthorized be cause the intent was to share them.
Even if Mr. Beckerman's OPINION is correct, and the attorneys representing the RIAA are stupid enough to tyr tom make an additional argument regarding copying music, the judge in this case, on this specific issue, would most certainly apply stare decisis. because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the specific issue of "copying music for personal use". I rather doubt any lower court would rule against a previous SC decision on this specific matter.
This issue in this case is the illegal sharing of the files, not the fact that they were copied. If the latter is what the RIAA is also arguing, they've already lost the case because the RIAA themselves state it is perfectly "legal" to copy music for PERSONAL use.
So, Mr. Beckerman's opinion, while certainly interesting, is moot. And we are again back to some in the blogosphere leaping before looking. This is the problem with "citizen journalism". Bloggers have no editors to pressure them to do fact checking or research.
Tosh
· 1 year ago
So this story did turn out to be BS. I'm glad to see Robert, engadget, and the rest backtracking. The original "take" made no sense anyway, given that it would essentiall deem iPods illegal (the vast majority of music on iPods is CD-rips, not iTMS purchased songs), which should've made it obvious that nobody was sued for merely ripping their own CD.
Christopher Coulter
· 1 year ago
Leave the sarcasm to the professionals... ;)
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Chris: like who? Dvorak?
Matt
· 1 year ago
Regardless of the fact that the main aim of the lawsuits is illegal file sharing, the RIAA is claiming that the personal digital copies of your own legitimate CDs are illegal. Even if the RIAA never sues anyone for making such copies, they're essentially claiming they can sue anyone whenever they want for making such copies, which is completely ridiculous.
Terry Heaton
· 1 year ago
Thank you, Shelley and Jerry, for helping set the record straight here. It's why I always try and read the comments, something the traditional press doesn't generally offer.
I do want to add that your use of this matter to blast "citizens media" is not in keeping with your general interest in facts, for the Washington Post played a rather big role in this, too.
At least here, I have the opportunity to read your input, and that is something we all appreciate — perhaps more than you realize.
LaVeda H. Mason
· 1 year ago
Here's another response to the RIAA (satire, as well):
This comment is copyrighted. Remembering any part of my comment is a violation, and any violators will be Tasered, and made to listen to genuine [your least favorite] music {g}!!
Wayne
· 1 year ago
Never underestimate the amount of bandwidth in a FedEX truck!
Regular Reader
· 1 year ago
I've quite buying music, essentially quit lisenting to music except the few thousand Cd's I acuired over the years, and quit going to concerts.
Think about Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it at least twice on 8-track, at least three times on album, at least once on cassette, at three three times on CD, and now they want to buy buy it again on I-Tunes. No thanks, I'll do without. Pass the wine.....
Scott
· 1 year ago
Anyone been to a music store lately? Exactly. Just passing by it in the mall, you can smell the death of an industry coming shortly.
Matt Moran
· 1 year ago
Actually the RIAA are getting people to think more about how they license their content, and what content people will buy based on what license terms apply. I've started looking for non-RIAA affiliated bands to get on my iPod; I'm downloading iTunes Plus tracks rather than DRMed stuff, and just lately I discovered a site that while at the moment there's not a lot there, pretty soon I reckon it'll be a big thing. CASHMusic.org is a site set up by Donita Sparks (ex-L7) and so far features music from Kristin Hersh (ex-Throwing Muses). Donita's expected to publish some of her own stuff there shortly. Basically they're releasing content under a Creative Commons license with the idea that people visiting the site will be able to download, listen to, re-mix, mash-up, cover, re-word, re-arrange, pretty much do what they want with it, as long as any derived content is itself published under the same license. The two tracks Kristin has published there have already spawned 2 dozen derived works, some good, some not-so-good. It's definitely worth a look.
All Comments
Nothing like getting a 750GB hard drive in the mail from a good friend loaded up with albums and albums of high bit rate DRM free mp3s.
...theoretically speaking of course.
wrt #6: So has William Gibson. Go read Spook Country. It's been done. Actually, I've read stories about pirates in APAC who overnight each other hard drives in lieu of using BitTorrent or FTP. A rather novel concept, to be sure.
Oh wait did I miss something? lol... Great post.
Great! Now the RIAA is going to sue the postal service just like they do the torrent sites.
I have the solution to the RIAA's problem. Before artists even become signed and lodged into the red tape of the "Music industry", let them manage their own career right on areunice...(launching on the 28th)
The Entertainment Portal for the World where artists can control their own destiny...
Thanks,
Eric
Companies want to force us to have to buy the same song or movie over and over again in different formats. That stinks.
But I also think it's over the line to expect that people should be able to "do whatever I want to with it" -- like giving away copies of a movie for free or using a song in a Flash animated movie without the creators' consent.
Both sides are going to have to compromise. I don't think creators' rights should be trampled just because the powers-that-be in their industry get too greedy. Creators need to be fairly compensated, and no, that doesn't mean everything has to be free but the tickets to their live concerts and their merchandise.
And while many might not agree with people like Trent Reznor...I find him 100% right with his view on the industry. He got to the point where, when returning to Australia (read link below), he said for everyone to steal his music!
The original problem with his album (year zero) in Australia.
http://www.spin.com/features/news/2007/05/07051...
Dawnkey, I agree with you. I do think that I should be able to do whatever I want, outside of illegal sharing or use without content, with the music I legally purchase.
ttp://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law
When It Comes to Copying Music, What’s Okay … And What’s Not:
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:
o The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
o 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.
Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I'm no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD's to "the mp3 format" and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context.
A few years ago, I listened to a lecture by Lawrence Lessig, and he made the exact same Britney Spears joke, as a way of side-stepping whether people should be allowed to "share" CD rips. It was irritating, because here he is, presenting his issues in a thoughtful manner, then when the big elephant in the room is dealt with, he dismisses it with a lame joke, and never dealt with that particular issue again in his talk.
Every one of these companies has changed hands in recent years, saddled with debt calculated against projected earnings based upon the 'good old days' when they got fat selling baby boomers their record collections all over again on CD and their video collections on DVD. I have news for you people, whatever the law says or is stretched to say- the gig is up.
Maybe the shareholders of these public companies should sue the executives of the MPAA/RIAA for failing to perform due diligence as to the financial aspects of their mergers/buy-outs/take-overs. Executives and Directors have an obligation to make decisions based upon accurate and realistic data and analysis. It's not the consumer's fault that their pie in the sky projections are flat wrong.
Maybe when they start developing musicians instead of rappers the market will change. Not my problem.
http://techfettis.wordpress.com
The RIAA and MPAA are getting so greedy about the mere thought of any lost revenue what so ever that they are starting to flail wildly out of control. Will they ever learn how to properly conduct their business with the changing times or are they just going to keep going until they have nothing left?
Also I think Qik is not available outside the U.S.
Happy new year.
We don't get independence from suppliers. It's something we get from ourselves, and that enables us to deal with *any* interested supplier on our terms — and not just theirs. Therefore VRM is not something that suppliers give us. So, while Radiohead did the right thing by letting the market determine what its music is worth, its relationship system is still a silo'd one. Meaning it only works with Radiohead. We need a system that allows us to pay any artist whatever we feel their music is worth to us. Independently.
Which means we need terms of engagement that live on the buyers' side of the marketplace. That's what I was suggesting a few months back, for example, with A Public Market for Public Music.
The new music business must be one that enables non-coercive "willing buyer/willing seller" mechanisms that are universal rather than silo'd separately by each supplier, each with their own terms of engagement. That's what we have today with the zillion different CRM systems that inhabit the world — all of which control "relationships" with buyers entirely from the seller's side. Without VRM on the buyer's side, the terms of engagement will still be set by the seller.
And it's well worth the read!
(Is 'newest first' comment listing a particularly Linux thing?)
;-)
"Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I’m no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD’s to “the mp3 format” and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context."
+1
The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD. Howell initially submitted a defense that the music was legally purchased and he ripped to the computer for personal use. At that point some mysterious entity then moved these files to his Kazaa directory without him knowing of the fact. However, he could provide no proof of such entity.
It was the movement into the Kazaa directory and hence making the items available for distribution that triggered the suit.
MiB are not going to be jumping out at you as you walk down the street, listening to your iPod. Well, they won't because of the music you're listening to.
Facts, people. I know facts aren't fun, but can't we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html
Even if Mr. Beckerman's OPINION is correct, and the attorneys representing the RIAA are stupid enough to tyr tom make an additional argument regarding copying music, the judge in this case, on this specific issue, would most certainly apply stare decisis. because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the specific issue of "copying music for personal use". I rather doubt any lower court would rule against a previous SC decision on this specific matter.
This issue in this case is the illegal sharing of the files, not the fact that they were copied. If the latter is what the RIAA is also arguing, they've already lost the case because the RIAA themselves state it is perfectly "legal" to copy music for PERSONAL use.
So, Mr. Beckerman's opinion, while certainly interesting, is moot. And we are again back to some in the blogosphere leaping before looking. This is the problem with "citizen journalism". Bloggers have no editors to pressure them to do fact checking or research.
I'm glad to see Robert, engadget, and the rest backtracking. The original "take" made no sense anyway, given that it would essentiall deem iPods illegal (the vast majority of music on iPods is CD-rips, not iTMS purchased songs), which should've made it obvious that nobody was sued for merely ripping their own CD.
I do want to add that your use of this matter to blast "citizens media" is not in keeping with your general interest in facts, for the Washington Post played a rather big role in this, too.
At least here, I have the opportunity to read your input, and that is something we all appreciate — perhaps more than you realize.
http://www.newstarget.com/022437.html
This comment is copyrighted. Remembering any part of my comment is a violation, and any violators will be Tasered, and made to listen to genuine [your least favorite] music {g}!!
Think about Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it at least twice on 8-track, at least three times on album, at least once on cassette, at three three times on CD, and now they want to buy buy it again on I-Tunes. No thanks, I'll do without. Pass the wine.....