We're all thieves in their eyes

[Steve the Pocket]

Addendum to my last comment: Pity it's the RIAA (whose members include virtually all record labels including many "indie" ones) that's being crazy and not (at least as of late) the Big Four labels themselves. Particularly this stunt, which would affect pretty much everyone if they actually were able to sue them all. That would have rocked, actually -- the Big Four sue practically everybody in the country for a bazillion dollars each, people boycott all their records, they all go bankrupt and their artists all end up getting picked up by indie labels.

[Arloest]

I thought about this a little harder and realized that this pretty much makes all mp3 players illegal. This new thing was implemented by the RIAA on the basis of this sentiment:

"when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
and
"If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing."

What are mp3s but copies of songs? Even if you use iTunes or something and download songs legally off your computer, you still have to make a copy of them to your mp3 player in order to PUT them on your mp3 player. And since they didn't say the unauthorized copies only applies to computers, that means simply having songs on your mp3 player is illegal. Which, in turn, makes mp3 players illegal.

What the pants?

[gforce422]

If this is enforced, I am so screwed.

[Comrade K]

If this is enforced, I am so screwed.

Run to a free country.

[Fritz]

You people are all criminals, I need to stop associating with you >:|

[Hanging Tree]

I thought about this a little harder and realized that this pretty much makes all mp3 players illegal. This new thing was implemented by the RIAA on the basis of this sentiment:

"when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
and
"If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing."

What are mp3s but copies of songs? Even if you use iTunes or something and download songs legally off your computer, you still have to make a copy of them to your mp3 player in order to PUT them on your mp3 player. And since they didn't say the unauthorized copies only applies to computers, that means simply having songs on your mp3 player is illegal. Which, in turn, makes mp3 players illegal.

What the pants?

Technically the MP3 players would still be legal because you could in theory only play MP3s of songs you recorded yourself, or songs you have permission to play.

[Rooster]

I'd pantsless piss myself if anyone tried to convict me of stealing "songs".

Oh nos! They're stealing sounds!!!

What a utter bunch of capitalist pikachus. I mean, to charge people for listening to music? Music is MEANT to be pantsless free! THAT's IT'S POINT!!!!

[CodeCat]

Technically the MP3 players would still be legal because you could in theory only play MP3s of songs you recorded yourself, or songs you have permission to play.

But according to the US DMCA, that qualifies as a circumvention device and is therefore illegal.

[Tom Flapwell]

Anyone seen the documentary Festival Express? There were a bunch of people who demanded free access to a concert venue because "music yearns to be free." Ask me, they were being jerks. Musicians need money; it wasn't fair to those who bought tickets; and when you think about it, no one was selling music -- they were renting seats. Any non-buyer could listen from outside the stadium.

I don't know how DCS feels about free online music downloads, but I know he's always hated the "Information yearns to be free" philosophy, which isn't friendly to cartoonists among other content providers.

[Tabris_The_17th]

What the pants?

That's my initial reaction, that's for sure.

I'd say, "well isn't the problem that he has all these files on his computer, rather than deleting them after transferring the files to a mobile device, and has the potential to distribute them" (which, in itself, is ridiculous), but the RIAA comment about making one copy of a song being supposedly stealing a copy blows my mind.

One part I can't help but single out, even if it isn't the direct focus of the article is the part that says:

"In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend."

I'm sure the RIAA busts a nut about people doing this, but I can't help but think about it in this light: Lets say your father buys a CD. You enjoy the band as well, so do you go out and buy the same CD? No, you share because you're family. Now, friends are like family, and it works under a similar principle in my eyes.

But what my point is this: There's only so many CDs one person can afford, and probably more than that amount that they actually want. They have a friend who is in the same boat and wants basically the same CDs. So one buys so many, and the other buys the rest, then they share with each other. Now, if they didn't do that, then naturally they would end up buying some of the same CDs and then others they wanted, but not quite as much, get left unsold.

Doesn't one option seem just a bit more fair to ALL the parties involved? But that's really here nor there I suppose. Obviously this is a silly example, but I'm just making a point. No matter how you try to analyze it, no system works perfectly or leaves everyone happy. I don't believe in wide spread file sharing across the internet, but sharing amongst close friends?....come on!

[Tabris_The_17th]

Oh, and...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg

Sorry, I had to

[osprey]

This is annoying to people like me, who, despite having no law stopping me from downloading music, buy albums anyways to support the artists. And now they're going to be punished because they don't want to carry a discman and a shitload of CDs with them?


WTF. Srsly.

[KJ Fellie]

I haven't bought an actual CD in ages. This is why.

[Rooster]

I buy CDs all the time because I actually see music as something to hold onto and to be treasured, not just something to "have on in the background". My 20gigs of mp3s are just temporary for me as I record most of it to CD and then delete the crap I get bored of.

But my CD collection is there forever. Just by looking at it, I can chart and follow the music I got into...remembering old albums I haven't played in ages (like Offspring's "Americana" and Brand New's "Your New Favourite Weapon"), I get to see rare albums I was lucky to get (like my one of only 1000 copies of Face to Face "Over It"), and even cringe at albums I get embarressed even seeing (Staind...nuff said.)


When people say to be "I've got over 85gb of music", my first response is "yeah, but how much of it have you actually listened to?" Because I have over 400 CDs, and I pretty much know each one inside and out.

Hell, the only reason I actually have Cds in the first place is because no-one's made a portable vynal player (even though it'd be sweet!). Sure, I have a portable Mp3 player, but it's just a 256, and I just put a few songs on it. If I get a new album, I'll take my CD player.

Blegh, kids.

[Loeln]

Hell, the only reason I actually have Cds in the first place is because no-one's made a portable vynal player (even though it'd be sweet!).

It could be a hat, a musical fantabulous hat :O