Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

They're not suing him for ripping, but they still think ripping is illegal. Sony's own lawyer said the following:

Exactly.

300 million people in the US, I bet more than half have bought CDs in their lifetime, and I bet ALL of them ripped them to their computers.

Sue them. All of them.

Sony will go bankrupt from the legal fees alone.

[ericschand]

The lawsuit is not over ripping of CD's, rather he was sharing them.

However, as noted above by others, the RIAA spokespeople have
made comments that ripping songs from a CD you purchase is
like stealing to them.

Also, the Motley Fool jumps in about record companies. "Investor, beware."

From what I've read, the numbers seem realisitic.
Here's another site if you want to work out the math.
Here's Courtney Love on recording contracts.

ers

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

They're not suing him for ripping, but they still think ripping is illegal.

Yea, I thought it was worth clarifying because I've seen this article paraphrased in many places, and each time they incorrectly represented the lawsuit.

Interestingly, from the RIAA's website:

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:

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
• 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.

http://riaa.org/physicalpiracy.php?c...online_the_law

[Bobblehead]

Keep in mind, these are the US laws.

The Canadia version of the RIAA, the CRIA, is wanting to bring in similar regressive laws in Canada. The minister in charge of this initiative, Jim Prentice, was on CBC this morning but didn't give many insights.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2522/125/

[mykalberta]

This is the same reasoing they give for ringtones.

To them when you by a CD you are only buying the media to be used in that format - essentially you are renting the CD - very interesting argument and one which the courts should shoot down but...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

This is the same reasoing they give for ringtones.

To them when you by a CD you are only buying the media to be used in that format - essentially you are renting the CD - very interesting argument and one which the courts should shoot down but...

The courts already shot it down in the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia case, ruling that consumers have the right to transfer legally-purchased music from one format to another (which includes ripping a CD to MP3 files on a computer).

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The courts already shot it down in the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia case, ruling that consumers have the right to transfer legally-purchased music from one format to another (which includes ripping a CD to MP3 files on a computer).

Only to a point. The RIAA lost the first round but were in the process of appealing to the next higher level when Diamond and the RIAA came to an agreement and the appeal was dropped.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fotze

I have no idea how valid those numbers are by the way.

Not very - the royalties for artist & publishing are way out of whack, for one. First off, if you are getting your first contract, the record company will scrooge you down, especially if you own both publishing and artistic rights to the work. Second, if you are signed by a major label it goes like this:

They front you a bunch of money to get your record produced. However, you almost always have to have a record-company appointed producer/executive producer in charge of that money, who decides where you will record, who you will use to do the mixing/engineering/sound production, etc. Often this person is associated with the record company, and will vastly overcharge (often using record company resources as well and essentially charging themselves).

Once you actually have a record, the record company then extracts the front money back from all your "royalties", however, this isn't off your gross royalties, it's off your net, which they calculate by subtracting 5-10% of units shipped for "wastage" from "broken units", then some more subtraction for "marketing costs". Further, as many cds can be returned to the company if they don't sell, the sales numbers themselves are manipulated so that the numbers of units sold are consistently misrepresented.

So the artist often ends up LOSING money on the record, as the record company takes the fronted money and pays it largely back to itself, then dins the artist for the "loan". In other words, the money may be earmarked for the artist, but that money never gets paid. The only ones who make out like bandits are the superstars, who usually are smart enough to get paid up front, and thus insulate themselves from the record company shenanigans.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by ericschand

...
Here's Courtney Love on recording contracts.

ers

who knew she could be so articulate.

good article, thanks for the link.

[ericschand]

For those interested, there is a very good book on recording
contracts by Donald Passman. Includes such eye-opening gems
as when you buy from Columbia House, the recording artist gets
nothing. It's considered "promotional material". That's why they
can sell you 10 CD's for 1 cent.

Amazon.com link

I believe the Calgary Library carries it as well.

ers

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by ericschand

when you buy from Columbia House, the recording artist gets nothing. It's considered "promotional material". That's why they can sell you 10 CD's for 1 cent.

I always wondered about that. Thanks. Looks like another good read to pick up.