RIAA says it's illegal to copy music to an iPod

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 17, 2006, 2:43 pm

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=32341

US record-label body the RIAA and movie-industry moguls at the MPAA are attempting to argue that copying a CD to a computer for carrying on an iPod does not, and has never, constituted fair use.

Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 17, 2006, 2:56 pm

That's beyond stupid, thats insane. So basically they are trying to say that even if you have bought a movie/cd, they want you to use fucking ITunes to buy it a second time to listen to /watch it on your ipod. If they were to win this (which I hope there is enough decency in whoever gets it to toss it out) Ipods sales are gonna go to non existent.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 17, 2006, 3:02 pm

I personally don't think it would affect sales all that much.

But I agree it's a stupid argument from the RIAA and MPAA and hopefully it wont make it into any sort of law.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 17, 2006, 3:03 pm

Aslanna wrote:I personally don't think it would affect sales all that much.

But I agree it's a stupid argument from the RIAA and MPAA and hopefully it wont make it into any sort of law.

Really? If it was made a law, that would mean people using their ipods would have to buy their music and movies specifically for it.. then if they want to watch it in a dvd player/cd player whatever they have to buy it a second time? Not a chance in hell I would ever do that.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 17, 2006, 3:07 pm

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean everyone will stop doing it.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 17, 2006, 3:08 pm

Well right, but in future models if they passed this law don't you think they would take away the possibility of even putting any files onto it ?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 17, 2006, 3:11 pm

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 17, 2006, 3:12 pm

I'm with Funk on this. Noone would ever buy 2 copies of the same media.

Shit I hated updating my vhs collection to DVD.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 17, 2006, 3:13 pm

Animalor wrote:I'm with Funk on this. Noone would ever buy 2 copies of the same media.

Shit I hated updating my vhs collection to DVD.

Exactly, I went through the exact same dilemma.. I just ended up replacing the ones I really really wanted and watch the others on vhs if I really want to see them.

I'll have to disagree Aslanna.. i would think if they made this lawful (obviously this is all speculation) that in the future you would be unable to load music or video onto the ipods anymore.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » February 17, 2006, 3:24 pm

I think it's now RIAA policy that the only thing anyone is allowed to do with music is pay for it.

I'm fairly sure you need written consent from Major League Baseball if you want to actually listen to it.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 17, 2006, 3:29 pm

I guess we'll just have to disagree then. They aren't saying it's illegal to place files on an iPod or other similar device. The just don't want you copying it from one media to another because they are greedy bastards. However, that really has nothing to do with iPod functionality.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » February 17, 2006, 3:30 pm

The RIAA is now saying it's illegal to purchase a CD and play it in your CD player. To listen to a CD in your CD player, you will need to purchase "Player-CD Packages".. meaning the CD will be sold with a CD player that can only play that CD (or vice versa).

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 17, 2006, 4:09 pm

Fuck them, people will always find a way around this sort of bullshit, thankfully

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 17, 2006, 4:39 pm

The scary part is that they aren't trying to get this made into law... they're trying to interpret an already existing law to suit their purposes. This is law already on the books. It's up to the judicial (most of whom don't even understand CDs, much less iPods) to say if their interpretation is vaild.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 17, 2006, 4:50 pm

This is hilariously ludicrous.

Corporations and trans-corporate entities (as a collectivity) tend to resort to appeals to capitalism in many cases. Want to lay off 10,000 workers? Blame capitalism. Want to move your production offshore? Blame capitalism. Want to pollute the bejeezus out of a local river? Blame capitalism.

Well that's all well and good, but then sometimes you end up in a situation like the RIAA is in right now-- when your business model has suddenly become obsolete. It's not that the music industry is dying in America-- far from it. Rather, the current business model in the music industry is dying. It's the evolution of the marketplace. Sometimes the marketplace changes, and necessitates consequences that are negative for workers, and sometimes the marketplace changes and necessitates consequences that are negative for corporations. It's funny to watch the same entities that argue most stridently for market freedom to come back with claims like this one when market freedom bites them in the ass.

If the RIAA wants to thrive in the future, it is going to have to fundamentally change the way it does business. That's just a fact. No matter how many interpretations of the law they issue or how many lawsuits they file, the music industry is simply not going to go back to the way it was 10 years ago. They can choose to adapt and take some short-term losses, or they can pull a retarded strategy of attempting to force society to conform to the needs of their business model instead of allowing their business model to meet the needs of society.

They might take plenty of illegal music traders down with them, but unless the RIAA undergoes a fundamental shift in strategy, they'll be irrelevant in years.

noel · Post by **noel** » February 17, 2006, 5:28 pm

The RIAA is an amazing organization. They're actually being made obsolete due to technology. God forbid artists be able to sell their products without the RIAA's help. People who are stupid think that the RIAA is trying to stop pirating. The reality is they're trying to use legislation to maintain their business model. Much like our friend Aslanna here; they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 17, 2006, 5:32 pm

I guess I didn't really have the knowledge to make the deductions you guys did, but I appreciate the insight(no im not being sarcastic). I still find them pathetic.. just.. let... go...

P.S. Noel, neither you or miir have bashed me in what seems like weeks now.. it's kind of getting boring.. can i pretend to say something to piss you off so you can tell me how stupid I am and spice up the boards a bit ?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 17, 2006, 5:43 pm

I'm still reeling from how high you had to have been to miss the massive cock Mariah was sporting. )

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » February 17, 2006, 5:48 pm

masteen wrote:The scary part is that they aren't trying to get this made into law... they're trying to interpret an already existing law to suit their purposes. This is law already on the books. It's up to the judicial (most of whom don't even understand CDs, much less iPods) to say if their interpretation is vaild.

The record companies got shot down bigtime in court here. The court ruled that it is completely legal to copy your music and also completely legal to break the copyright protection on music/DVDs so you can play it in other formats etc. They were not happy!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 17, 2006, 5:57 pm

If somethign like this were to happen it is entirely possible that some companies like Ipod would change their formats. I believe the MP3 format is copyrighted and everytime it is used there is supposed to be a royalty paid. Apple could start using a different format and save money on royalties. I am guessing they are probably rooting for the RIAA.

I don't the RIAA will ever get anywhere with this. What they will likely do is continue harass and blackmail small time users with threats of prosecution. I am surprised they can get away with this sort. At what point did it stop being extortion to threaten someone or get paid. I guess you can get away with it when you have more lawyers.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 17, 2006, 7:40 pm

Oh no I'm in danger of becoming irrelevant on an anonymous message board. Whatever will I do? Oh wait it's just Noel. Nevermind!

sweetkastings · Post by **sweetkastings** » February 17, 2006, 7:47 pm

people buy music for their iTunes...

Limewire/bearshare... come on people

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 17, 2006, 8:53 pm

What are you?

sweetkastings · Post by **sweetkastings** » February 17, 2006, 9:50 pm

Ill take "your worst nightmare for 1,000, Alex."

noel · Post by **noel** » February 17, 2006, 11:56 pm

Aslanna wrote:Oh no I'm in danger of becoming irrelevant on an anonymous message board. Whatever will I do? Oh wait it's just Noel. Nevermind!

You cared enough to comment. I'm touched.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 17, 2006, 11:57 pm

I love intellectual flame wars. =P

sweetkastings · Post by **sweetkastings** » February 18, 2006, 12:33 am

They are quite fun...

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » February 18, 2006, 3:44 am

Why haven't you shot yourself yet sweetkastings? Are triggers too confusing for you?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 19, 2006, 2:32 am

Even if it had passed into law, how long do you think CDs are going to be around anyway? Seriously. Why buy a CD that's playable only with a large CD playing device when you can download a song to your iPod or other MP3 player and then use that portable tiny player in your car.. your home.. in the gym.. outside.. etc.

noel · Post by **noel** » February 19, 2006, 2:14 pm

Siji wrote:Even if it had passed into law, how long do you think CDs are going to be around anyway? Seriously. Why buy a CD that's playable only with a large CD playing device when you can download a song to your iPod or other MP3 player and then use that portable tiny player in your car.. your home.. in the gym.. outside.. etc.

That's a simple question really, but I'll answer it anyway. CDs are MUCH higher quality than anything your downloading to play on an iPod/MP3/WMA player.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 20, 2006, 12:46 am

Sound off IPOD Nano is fucking amazing, dunno why you're saying that.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 20, 2006, 3:15 am

noel wrote: That's a simple question really, but I'll answer it anyway. CDs are MUCH higher quality than anything your downloading to play on an iPod/MP3/WMA player.

hmm, once you're around 320k bits /sec you're getting pretty close to the quality of a CD.

Conclusions

All in all, I was impressed by the quality of MP3's vs CD. Unlike the preconceived notions I had when I set out to do these tests, the 192Kbps MP3 was indeed "near CD quality." The degradation was indeed subtle, but noticeable. It is my belief, however, that on the HiFi setup the 192Kbps MP3 is more fatiguing to the ears during extended listening. Surprisingly, 256Kbps and 320Kbps MP3 were virtually indistinguishable by my ears from the CD, except for a light boost in the upper midrange and treble.

So what does this all mean? My feeling is that 192Kbps MP3 is more than adequate for listening with a computer or in a car. The distortion and lousy frequency response of the systems themselves (as well as the high ambient noise in a car) make the 192Kbps MP3 sound so similar to the original CD that the advantage of the smaller storage requirements of the MP3 far outweigh the sonic benefits of the CD. It's nice to have 5-6 audio CD's worth of music on a single MP3 CD - almost like having a CD changer in your hands. On the other hand, for critical listening on a HiFi, I feel that 256Kbps is the best bitrate to use, because it sounds significantly better than 192Kbps. Since I couldn't hear any improvement at all when going to up to 320Kbps, I don't recommend going this high for the simple reason that the file sizes are significantly larger.

noel · Post by **noel** » February 20, 2006, 3:37 am

I'm not saying that *I* personally have a problem with the sound of either AACs or even 192Kbps MP3s (which is incidentally the bit-rate that I record music at).

However, there is a large group of audiophiles out there that have a serious problem with what they believe to be substandard sound quality of MP3s and even Apple's AAC format. For those people, CD audio is not going away.

For me personally, 99% of the time when I'm listening to music I'm either in the car or exercising and at that point the sound quality of even 128Kbps is plenty good enough for me.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2006, 4:14 am

Nick wrote:Sound off IPOD Nano is fucking amazing, dunno why you're saying that.

If you're deafening yourself with a personal music device, the quality isn't really important.

Similarly, if you're trying to shake your fillings out in a moving vehicle and mostly drowning out road noise (and warning sirens, etc), 128 bit is just peachy.

If you have an actual HI-FI system and aren't a cloth-eared bint (as in Winnow's quote), there's a huge, massive, just unbelieveably large difference between MP3 and (well mastered) CDs, and about the same again between CDs and music DVDs. Source is important too, if you're converting a shitty source like Killing Heidi's debut album (which was compressed for Radio on the CD....) you won't hear a difference, which goes for a lot of rock.

Of course, if you've spent your teens and twenties listening to music on headphones loud enough that people had to tap you on the shoulder to get your attention, you're probably already too deaf to hear the full range a decent HI-FI will produce, so ummmm nevermind.

Wonko Wenusberg · Post by **Wonko Wenusberg** » February 20, 2006, 5:04 pm

Aaww soon they'll send in a patent application for sound and all that it contains and we will be genetically engineered from birth to have chargable earmuffs! Technology at the frontier driven by profit!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 20, 2006, 5:44 pm

I don't know what bit rate songs from iTunes are, but anything less than 192 is unacceptable to me although I prefer 256 if I see them.

Well, maybe not unacceptable. But definitely as a last resort.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 20, 2006, 6:00 pm

I'd say it's a safe bet that the general population is perfectly content with the sound quality of purchased MP3's. People that care about the difference would be better suited to DVD audio. The convenience and price of electronic music versus CD music will be the only thing that matters for most people.

Drolgin Steingrinder · February 20, 2006, 6:32 pm

I want FLAC support

barring that, VBR -aps as a bare minimum (LAME).

noel · Post by **noel** » February 20, 2006, 7:28 pm

Aslanna wrote:I don't know what bit rate songs from iTunes are, but anything less than 192 is unacceptable to me although I prefer 256 if I see them.

Well, maybe not unacceptable. But definitely as a last resort.

Ahh yes, but the iTunes format (AAC/MP4) is a totally different codec/compression algorithim than MP3, so 192Kbps MP3 is not the same as 192Kbps AAC.

Siji, regardless of whether or not individuals can hear the difference (different people have different hearing abilities) there is a difference, and it's significant.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2006, 7:59 pm

However, there is a large group of audiophiles out there that have a serious problem with what they believe to be substandard sound quality of MP3s and even Apple's AAC format. For those people, CD audio is not going away.

Right you are. However, there's also a pretty significant group of people who still insist on having their music on record. Thus, records still exist, but this fact does not mean that records are a really significant part of the overall music business as experienced by the vast majority of Americans.

I really don't know what the future format of music will look like, but just because a niche group exists to keep a particular format alive does not mean that said format will remain a relevant part of the greater business.

As Zaelath pointed out in such a snide and elitist manner, many potential customers of the music business have physically degraded their listening abilities to a point where it doesn't matter anyway. This is a large group of young people that will only get larger as it ages, and for them, the CD is already largely irrelevant.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 20, 2006, 9:01 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:I want FLAC support

barring that, VBR -aps as a bare minimum (LAME).

Yep, FLAC, Monkey (APE) and OptimFROG are all lossless formats for the peeps that want perfect copies.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2006, 9:02 pm

I see no ethical dilema in holding people that deafen themselves prematurely in contempt... =)

If they killed themselves in a stupid manner it would be a Darwin Award and we'd all laugh about it, but I should empathise with idiots that run their headphones so loud a comfortable listening volume can be achieved 6 feet away while the cans are still on their head? Please.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2006, 10:22 pm

I see no ethical dilema in holding people that deafen themselves prematurely in contempt... =)

And I don't expect you too

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 21, 2006, 5:27 am

LOL ZEALATH LIEVS IN A SUNNY COUNTRY HE HAS A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF GETTING SKIN CANCER DARWIN AWARD LOL

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2006, 5:49 am

Nick wrote:LOL ZEALATH LIEVS IN A SUNNY COUNTRY HE HAS A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF GETTING SKIN CANCER DARWIN AWARD LOL

Shut up, ya drunk.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 21, 2006, 6:53 am