How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You

[kv]

IMHO, it was probably part of their strategy all along. Call it phase 2. They had to know public pressure would build against them with their heavy-handed tactics, plus they would never be able to re-coup their legal fees incurred from suing thousands of file swappers, the majority of whom are young (early twenties) or still in school.

So they target a relative few people to make an example of, and then hope that the FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor will scare most people into being "grateful" they're not already on the list and have an out. It also gives them the ability to argue that they are making a reasonable compromise and inviting people to recognize the error of their ways. I would think it may even strengthen their case if they choose to pursue offenders after they've already offered an amnesty that was rejected.

Either way, the whole thing's ridiculous.

Also, tracking IP addresses from the EFF site (which would never happen, if you're at all familiar with that organization's mission and the fact that they've been the biggest obstacle standing in the RIAA's way) would not empower the RIAA to start pursuing users who are just checking to see if they're on the list. It would never hold up under legal scrutiny. Besides, they've already got their list of offenders to pursue with the records to back it up.

Just throwing in my $0.02 again...!

KV

[Spooky Man G]

At least theyre not using the NIMBY factor (not in my backyard). I just had to use another acronym.

[viper0070]

Originally posted by Spooky Man G
Snagging a couple of candies from a bin that sells them for 6.99/lb is illegal, but hey, everyone now and then does it. (admit it!)

ITS CALLED TASTE TESTING! Whats wrong with testing (downloading an MP3) and if you like it, buying retail?

[Spooky Man G]

That's what I do....

[Nix]

Well talking of things Piracy related, today (19th September) is Talk Like a Pirate Day

Don't belive me then go here

[Abhoth]

I suppose I should weigh in on this... can't say I'm for or against. Or much give a dramn either way.
When the wife says to me... "Hey, my folks used to listen to Herb Alpert and Roger Miller when we were kids" Where do you think I'm going to get that...?
Do you really think that Micro$oft didn't know that their early OS's were being installed all over the place? The more machines running it, purchased or not, all the better. Still have a customer now don't you. They made it a bit more difficult with Win XP, but they've got the market don't they...?
The RIAA needs to learn how to work with technology and not against it... although they have a much more difficult chore in many respects. But taking folks to court is not the way.
Hope I don't get busted for those Boxcar Willie tracks...

[frebo]

someone on another forum said it is legal to record music from a radio station onto your harddrive is this true

[jmtjet]

As I understand it, It's illegal to record music as it's being played from a radio station. The station has a license to broadcast the music, but if listeners record it, that's piracy. That's a popular assumption, but just not so.

[kv]

You're allowed to tape radio in the same way that you're allowed to videotape a TV show without fear of prosecution, there's legal precendent protecting you. The only contingency is public broadcast, you can record for personal use but if you record and make it "publicly available" that's a whole different story, which leads into the RIAA's case. If you weren't allowed to tape radio, then the RIAA would be suing Sony, JVC, Pioneer and every other manufacturer of portable tape/radio players or stero systems. Just like they tried to with VCR's (which led to the legal precedent protecting us.)

The reason they're so up-in-arms lately is that a ripped MP3 track is much different from any type of tape-recording, in that the quality is so much better, and easier to acquire, that it's taken it to a whole new level...

KV

[frebo]

so if you record music from a radio station and put it on you hd you are not downloading and if you dont let any body download it from you then ok. in any event how would anybody be able to know if you are recording music from a radio station.

[SuperSparks]

A very interesting article here, it really is time that someone took the RIAA down a peg or two:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662

[Spooky Man G]

Bastards... wow, they sue the bejesus out of its customers to "compensate" for lost incomes and pocket it instead

[kv]

Originally posted by frebo
so if you record music from a radio station and put it on you hd you are not downloading and if you dont let any body download it from you then ok. in any event how would anybody be able to know if you are recording music from a radio station.

Music from web-based radio stations is generally of much lower quality than MP3's on file sharing networks. This is analogous to taping a song off the radio, the quality is ok but you probably wouldn't burn a CD with it.

The RIAA is only concerned with the swapping of digital files that come close to original quality, this is what they think keeps people from buying CD's. Worse, MP3's are not all created equal, and they've been keeping a forensic database of MP3 signatures over the years, sp they can often ascertain if a file was downloaded from a p2p network (Napster, Kazaa, whatever). This means that if you're caught with one they recognize, you lose your ability to say you created the copy yourself for personal use.

At the end of the day, it just means you need to be willing to take the risk if you're using a p2p app for file sharing. Open your computer, and you run the risk of the RIAA taking a look around. Keep it closed, and you're safe (for now, until the RIAA convinces the courts to let them start kicking people's doors in...)

Just another $0.02...!

KV

[frebo]

if you copy from a fm stereo station with a good recorder run it through spin doctor and record it digitally to a cd it sounds fine to me.