PDA

View Full Version : RIAA Claims Ripping a CD to Your iPod is Not "Fair Use"


MacBytes
Feb 16, 2006, 09:41 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: RIAA Claims Ripping a CD to Your iPod is Not "Fair Use" (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060216224123)
Description:: The RIAA is once again trying to assert that ripping a CD and space-shifting it to your iPod is not a noninfringing use (fair use) of the music you have bought, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Mudbug
Feb 16, 2006, 09:42 PM
I think this goes to show the RIAA has a full infection of rectal-cranial inversion.

Superdrive
Feb 16, 2006, 09:46 PM
Fine, I'll just P2P the next album then.

2nyRiggz
Feb 16, 2006, 09:47 PM
These guys are idiots....soon they will say that we have to listen to the songs in order as its on the album.


Bless

iGary
Feb 16, 2006, 09:48 PM
Looks like we're all really concerned with what the RIAA has to say these days then.

Right. :rolleyes:

Chundles
Feb 16, 2006, 09:50 PM
http://www.users.bigpond.com/ewert/frontline/castle.jpg

Tell 'em, to get stuffed.

dornoforpyros
Feb 16, 2006, 09:51 PM
It's very simple, purchasing the music and ripping it via iTunes to your iPod is illegal, so unless you feel like buying with your credit card from iTunes there is no legal way to get music onto your iPod.

Ok fine RIAA, I'll continue downloading, thanks.

aquajet
Feb 16, 2006, 09:51 PM
******* the RIAA

frankblundt
Feb 16, 2006, 09:53 PM
Tell 'em, to get stuffed.
Ah, my favourite Australian...
"Tell 'im he's dreamin' mate."

plinkoman
Feb 16, 2006, 09:55 PM
they can go @#$% themselves.

there's no nicer way for me to put it. http://www.vortexmediagroup.com/images/banghead.gif

there's only so far i'm willing to be pushed. as of now, i buy all my music legally, be that on iTunes or on CD. if it becomes illegal to rip a cd to my iPod, i WILL do it anyway, if they make cd's un-rippable, i WILL download my music illegally.

but i doubt they will get very far with this...

faintember
Feb 16, 2006, 09:58 PM
WTF???!?!?!

So is playing the CD in my oldskool Diskman player a violation of "fair use"?

Are the RIAA trying to make people stop buying music period?

Please, wake up RIAA, you lost.

Thataboy
Feb 16, 2006, 10:03 PM
They probably think that the MPAA gets protection on DVDs, so why shouldnt they get protection on CDs.

And they have a point.

Why should they be treated differently? Of course, MY reaction is "there should be parity... NEITHER should have copy protection." The RIAA is going for parity in the other (evil) direction.

Spock
Feb 16, 2006, 10:05 PM
Whats going to happen when we all go digital? With apps like Garageband how long will it be before instead of bands paying studio time they purchase audio recording hardware and record and edit on the Mac themselves and upload to iTms? Screw the RiAA

faintember
Feb 16, 2006, 10:08 PM
<snip>how long will it be before instead of bands paying studio time they purchase audio recording hardware and record and edit on the Mac themselves and upload to iTms? Screw the RiAA While many bands do record themselves, or record in "home" studios and not the typical studio environment, the skill of a good studio engineer/mixer wont be replaced by software. That said, i concur, screw the RIAA.

jimN
Feb 16, 2006, 10:17 PM
So they'd like you guys to buy the cd and download the song from iTunes. In the week when Timewarner (i think) announced a significant increase in profits from digital music sales you'd think they'd learn to accept what they have rather than continuing to push for the impossible. Greed can be a very ugly thing.

powerbook911
Feb 16, 2006, 10:17 PM
Pretty amusing.

We can buy on iTunes and make CDs, but we can't rip a paid for CD, into iTunes. ok.

PlaceofDis
Feb 16, 2006, 10:18 PM
so i guess what i'm doing right now is illegal?

iGary
Feb 16, 2006, 10:19 PM
so i guess what i'm doing right now is illegal?

Crime Whore™ :D

aquajet
Feb 16, 2006, 10:29 PM
so i guess what i'm doing right now is illegal?

Heh, you naughty boy. I can count no less than six things that I'm doing right now that are illegal. ;)

tsaxer
Feb 16, 2006, 10:31 PM
Insane.

Guess I'll just have to get a white eye patch to match my earbuds...Arrr
:rolleyes:

bc2610
Feb 16, 2006, 10:33 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

cgratti
Feb 16, 2006, 10:35 PM
Good, now I will rip every CD I own and then maybe download a few songs free, just to show them how much I care.

Here's the part I love:

Should the RIAA have its way on this issue, one would presumably have to buy a copy of a song for your car or home CD player, and another copy of the same song for any digital media devices you wished to play it on. This has been a dream scenario for the RIAA for some time, and one that this editor has often discussed when writing on the issue at The Mac Observer.

-------

Yea, like that's ever going to happen... I am going to buy a song 3 times so I can listen to it in my car, on my ipod, and in my home... Hahahaha
How about I buy it ZERO times and load it on EVERY device I own... Greedy Pigs...

iGary
Feb 16, 2006, 10:37 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

So you agree with the RIAA on this one? I shouldn't be able to buy a CD and listen to it on my iPod?

I need a music license for every device I own?

Get real, dude. Music isn't software. Never has been.

uv23
Feb 16, 2006, 10:38 PM
The RIAA can go F themselves. It really is that simple. Their days are numbered before artists go independent/internet-distrubuted en masse.

p0intblank
Feb 16, 2006, 10:38 PM
Does anyone even listen to the RIAA anymore? Is anyone even scared of them like they used to be back in the days of Napster? I for one am not. They're just trying to get attention. :rolleyes:

faintember
Feb 16, 2006, 10:39 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. Umm the legality is still in debate. There are no laws saying that ripping a CD is illegal People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. You got it when i purchased the CD or downloaded via iTunes.

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Really? (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996609) Warner said Tuesday its earnings increased 92% to $69 million
Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years. So you suggest we go back to vinyls, 8-track tapes and the cassette?

plinkoman
Feb 16, 2006, 10:39 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

drop the attitude pal, no one here is actually stealing music, we buy cd's, and put them on our iPods, which is currently legal, were talking about how the RIAA is trying to make that illegal. in anycase, the people here pay for their music.

seriously pal, drop the attitude and maybe try reading a little bit next time before you make wild accusations to everyone on here :rolleyes:

cgratti
Feb 16, 2006, 10:40 PM
Does anyone even listen to the RIAA anymore? Is anyone even scared of them like they used to be back in the days of Napster? I for one am not. They're just trying to get attention. :rolleyes:


They figure if they say this CRAP, they might scare enough people into not doing it. Woooooooo, I for one, am shaking in my boots...

tsaxer
Feb 16, 2006, 10:41 PM
How is paying $15 bucks for a CD then listening to it STEALING? It's not like we all live in places where there are CD rental shops (a la Japan).

EDIt: Dang it! everybody beat me to the troll-feeding!

Still, people will not likely downgrade from the small ipod to a big friggin' CD player, so trying to stop people from listening to music THEY PAID FOR, in the manner they wish, is just idiotic.

iGary
Feb 16, 2006, 10:43 PM
How is paying $15 bucks for a CD then listening to it STEALING? It's not like we all live in places where there are CD rental shops (a la Japan).

Oh, you don't get it, see.

You need to buy a CD for your computer, one for your iPod, one for your iPod shuffle, one for your iPod nano, one for your home stereo and one for YOUR FRACKING CAR!!!!

Good lord.

kugino
Feb 16, 2006, 10:44 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.
chill out, man. a lot of us do buy music. what we're upset about is that the RIAA is now telling us that we can't listen to the CD we bought on our own ipods...we feel that once we own the CD, we should be able to do whatever we want with it for our OWN PERSONAL USE...why is it that the RIAA allows us to burn CDs with the music we've bought on itunes, but we can't transfer our tunes from CD to ipod?? that's f*$*&d up.

there are many musicians and small-label companies out there that don't make a lot of money...but i'm willing to bet that sony, rca, and other major companies are doing fine with the dough...so even though you might not be doing so well, i'm sure sony doesn't need you to stand up for them...they're doing quite okay. :rolleyes:

cgratti
Feb 16, 2006, 10:45 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.


Who are you kidding? Why are all the execs driving around in $75,000 cars and lavish homes. If you would set a reasonable price on your product this wouldn't even be an issue. Then you cry and whine about how broke you are going. I buy a CD, you get your $, why should I have to buy it again for use on my iPod or in my car?

When you buy a TV are you leaglly allowed to move it to the kitchen to watch it? Or do you have to buy a seperate one for the kitchen?

You are all money grubbing rejects with nothing on your minds but making money and worrying about little Jimmy down the street downloading music on the Internet. Get a life...

kugino
Feb 16, 2006, 10:47 PM
Oh, you don't get it, see.

You need to buy a CD for your computer, one for your iPod, one for your iPod shuffle, one for your iPod nano, one for your home stereo and one for YOUR FRACKING CAR!!!!

Good lord.
yeah, but according to the RIAA, we CAN'T buy one for the ipod...

iGary
Feb 16, 2006, 10:49 PM
Why are all the execs driving around in $75,000 cars and lavish homes

I'd like to drive around in my house, too. :p

winmacguy
Feb 16, 2006, 10:50 PM
I think this goes to show the RIAA has a full infection of rectal-cranial inversion.
Couldn't have said it better myself Mudbug;)

cgratti
Feb 16, 2006, 10:51 PM
I'd like to drive around in my house, too. :p


LOL, you know what I meant....

frankblundt
Feb 16, 2006, 10:52 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!
Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.
I don't think anyone here was talking about stealing, just buying music like they have for 50 years and being able to listen to it on multiple devices, like they have for 30 years. The industry doesn't help itself by this kind of egregious bullying and it will go nowhere, just like the attempts to retrospectively enforce royalties on the .jpg format.

As an indie you should know better than most that the internet, free downloads and the ability to copy and distribute mp3s has done more than any industry body or its lobbied legislation to help small labels and their artists get their works out into the world and actually make money (something previously unheard of in this country). It's the majors (and the indies who act like them) who are being cut out of the loop. The musicians are doing just fine thanks. Never better in fact. We're playlisted in Nepal!

(You could always put your money where your mouth is and buy our album vvvv if the free downloads on our site make you feel dirty ;) )

plinkoman
Feb 16, 2006, 10:52 PM
well, looks like i should start deleting all the music on my iPod that came from cd's :)

no wait, come to think of it... nah, i think i wont :)

winmacguy
Feb 16, 2006, 11:00 PM
I'd like to drive around in my house, too. :p
I could drive my car in our house but I would have to make the front door wider so I could drive through it. ;)

bc2610
Feb 16, 2006, 11:02 PM
The RIAA can go F themselves. It really is that simple. Their days are numbered before artists go independent/internet-distrubuted en masse.

Yeah because it is that simple to do your own distribution. Not to mention the profits made on digital sales are not nealry enough to keep a record label in business.

Consider more than just emotion when making statements and actually use your brain.

winmacguy
Feb 16, 2006, 11:03 PM
(You could always put your money where your mouth is and buy our album vvvv if the free downloads on our site make you feel dirty ;) )
Hey frank are you on the album cover on your site?

frankblundt
Feb 16, 2006, 11:04 PM
Hey frank are you on the album cover on your site?
maybe... one reviewer said we looked like a bunch of geeks :)

winmacguy
Feb 16, 2006, 11:06 PM
Yeah because it is that simple to do your own distribution. Not to mention the profits made on digital sales are not nealry enough to keep a record label in business.

Consider more than just emotion when making statements and actually use your brain.
You havent heard of a very successful band called Fat Freddy's Drop I take it. They only recently signed to a small label after becoming very successful without the help of a record label.
http://www.muzic.net.nz/artists/235.html

amateurmacfreak
Feb 16, 2006, 11:07 PM
Pretty amusing.

We can buy on iTunes and make CDs, but we can't rip a paid for CD, into iTunes. ok.
Yes, but we can't give the burnt CDs to our friends, then they're pissed. Whoops. I think I pissed them off. :( :rolleyes: :p
Anyways, this is bogus. Wtf is going to listen anyways? Who do they want to listen? Who do they expect to listen?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Anyways, I at least get my music legally, and they should be happy for that.
Record companies are getting greedy.

plinkoman
Feb 16, 2006, 11:07 PM
Consider more than just emotion when making statements and actually use your brain.

excuse me?

this coming from YOU?

your the one who came in here emotionally accusing all of us of stealing when we paid for our music, and you couldn't even use your brain to figure out that we weren't actually stealing anything, and then you tried to portray record execs as these poor little things.

get a clue...

winmacguy
Feb 16, 2006, 11:07 PM
maybe... one reviewer said we looked like a bunch of geeks :)
Ill have to check the CD out. Good photo.

amateurmacfreak
Feb 16, 2006, 11:10 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.
I agree with your point, and it is valid, but what difference does it make if I take a CD that I have and put it on my computer to listen? I don't use Limewire, and the reason I don't isn't because I'm legally afraid, it's because I feel like it's ethically wrong b/c the people I'm buying from deserve to make a living, and I know that the music I love can't keep being made if there's not a paying market for it.
I'm not someone who gets stuff from Limewire. I'm someone who wants to listen to a CD I freaking own on my iPod.

frankblundt
Feb 16, 2006, 11:10 PM
You havent heard of a very successful band called Fat Freddy's Drop I take it. They only recently signed to a small label after becoming very successful without the help of a record label.
http://www.muzic.net.nz/artists/235.html
They just broke the record actually for being at the top of the album (that's not digital downloads) charts for 41 weeks. And so they should, it's bloody brilliant.

amateurmacfreak
Feb 16, 2006, 11:13 PM
Good, now I will rip every CD I own and then maybe download a few songs free, just to show them how much I care.

Here's the part I love:

Should the RIAA have its way on this issue, one would presumably have to buy a copy of a song for your car or home CD player, and another copy of the same song for any digital media devices you wished to play it on. This has been a dream scenario for the RIAA for some time, and one that this editor has often discussed when writing on the issue at The Mac Observer.

-------

Yea, like that's ever going to happen... I am going to buy a song 3 times so I can listen to it in my car, on my ipod, and in my home... Hahahaha
How about I buy it ZERO times and load it on EVERY device I own... Greedy Pigs...
I agree that a lot of people at the RIAA are greedy pigs, but to keep a market for music, we have to pay for it.
I only think we should have to pay once, but it's our responsibility to pay if we want people to keep making great music for a paying market and if we want the musician's we love to have good lives in financial security.
It's people like you, who don't pay for music, that make the market weaker and make less great music be able to be made and distributed.
Live long musicians, and live happy lives, making great music.

Spock
Feb 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
The RIAA kinda reminds me of a little Redmond company next we will have to call and activate our CD's And we all need to calm down before this thread looks like a bunch of PC users and gets closed.

osustudent
Feb 16, 2006, 11:16 PM
Dear bc2610:

No clarification after being taken out back on here? You come back with a relatively weak reply? I normally don't read through full pages of this stuff, but you might as well clarify yourself.

Thanks.

----
And yeah, I agree with pretty much everyone who thinks the RIAA can stick it. Good thing I've been downloading on iTunes for two years now.

nagromme
Feb 16, 2006, 11:33 PM
I don't listen to my CDs (which are in a box archived) AND my iTunes rip at the same time--nor do I sell the CD and keep the rip--so I don't see any grounds for this being unethical. I'm just playing the music I bought, for myself, by a means that's technically different from a simple CD player.

sord
Feb 16, 2006, 11:41 PM
******* the RIAA
Couldn't have said it better - straight to the point!

2nyRiggz
Feb 17, 2006, 12:04 AM
It annoys me how they try to "swing" the buyers and think nothing of it. They want to control itunes so bad they are willing to do this crap....bring it on and i it will be dismissed. they are trying to milk us...


Bless

aquajet
Feb 17, 2006, 12:17 AM
They want to control itunes so bad they are willing to do this crap....

That's right. And if we follow the RIAA's logic, then we shouldn't be able to burn our music purchased from the iTMS on a CD-R either.

In fact, as long as we're talking about "format-shifting" and "space-shifting", then we'll need to buy two copies from the iTMS; one for our Mac, and another for our iPod.

iBlue
Feb 17, 2006, 12:30 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

as a consumer of independent means, i find all this RIAA boohoo'ing despicable. RIAA missed the boat on this one and that's their own problem, their lack of planning does not constitute a "do-over" on our parts. steal from your own plates? i bought the contents on my plates and i'll distribute it [amongst my own plates] however i want to.

i buy a CD, DVD or a piece of software for my own use i will put it on any one of my own devices that will allow it. that buys me a personal license to use it and operate it as i see fit.

iMeowbot
Feb 17, 2006, 12:37 AM
The scary part of the way copyright law is currently set up is that both RIAA statements (it's legal to rip, but it's not fair use) are correct! :eek:

Ripping for personal use is a right specifically granted in Title 17, Chapter 10. ("No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright . . . based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.") Because it is a specific right, the vague fair use test doesn't apply.

Isn't this fun?

Timepass
Feb 17, 2006, 12:40 AM
that just stupid. I own quite a few cds. most of them just say in there case year round. First thing I do after I get a cd is rip it to my computer and never really take it out again. Everything else is either a burned copy of it for my car or it in mp3 on either my iPod or my computer. And lets see I dont really listen to more than one of those at a time.....
this is just stupid. If it was not for hard drive space issue I can promise you most of my DVD would get riped to my computer as well.

frankblundt
Feb 17, 2006, 12:43 AM
Because it is a specific right, the vague fair use test doesn't apply.
And hasn't done since the days of cassettes. It's only now they're digging it out and waving it around, again, because life as the Recording Industry knows it is about to end, again, like it did then. Like video killed Hollywood then too.

iBlue
Feb 17, 2006, 12:44 AM
......

Isn't this fun?

like a bumpy half-broken carnival ride. :D

GoCubsGo
Feb 17, 2006, 01:06 AM
RIAA Claims Ripping a CD to Your iPod is Not "Fair Use"

To each is own. I claim the RIAA can kiss my ass, they claim me ripping my 400+ CDs to my iPod isn't fair use. It's all good. I wonder how they feel about me selling all 400 CDs after I ripped them to my iPod.

mrsebastian
Feb 17, 2006, 01:08 AM
here we go again. you gotta love these [bleeps]. if anyone cares, go check out their website (riaa.com), where every article in their latest news is about piracy... it sure is a good thing the riaa cares so much about music! otherwise we might have to go out and buy all the amazing crap they keep shoving down our throats... same [bleep] different day and they can still go [bleep] themselves.

Bad Beaver
Feb 17, 2006, 01:35 AM
Can someone please interview a RIAA representative and lure said person into admitting that what they really want is each and everybody on the planet forced by law to give them $50/month (minimum) without getting ANYTHING in return. No CD, no file, not right to nothing.

I am not a very religious person, but I know Satan has a very special place for people like this.

Chundles
Feb 17, 2006, 02:30 AM
Twiddling thumbs.....

It is actually illegal here (although from what I hear, not for long) to rip a CD.....and I simply don't care.

Anyone who tells me how to listen to the music I have paid for can go fornicate themselves with a rusty iron bar. I'm not selling it, I'm not distributing it. I buy one copy of the CD and I listen to it on my iPod with the CD safely stopping my CD rack from floating away.

They can all garn get farked.

iJaz
Feb 17, 2006, 02:44 AM
RIAA Claims Ripping a CD to Your iPod is Not "Fair Use"

I think suing kids is not fair. :rolleyes:
Listening to my purchased CDs where I want on the other hand is very fair.

winmacguy
Feb 17, 2006, 04:21 AM
Twiddling thumbs.....

It is actually illegal here (although from what I hear, not for long) to rip a CD.....and I simply don't care

They can all garn get farked.
Its illegal in the land of the long white cloud (New Zealand) too.:(

50548
Feb 17, 2006, 04:51 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

You silly, silly little boy. Stupidest thing said whole thread. You know nothing about the RIAxx, or copyright, and what you say is just verbal diarrhoea.

Now contribute to the debate, or leave.

Again...

Sorry, but YOU don't know **** about copyright law. The moment you say RIAA is correct is the moment when you prove you have no clue about the issue. Fair use is not about licensing, it's an overarching statutory right granted on the grounds of a legitimate application of the license you get in the first place.

It's OBVIOUS that if you get a song, you ARE (or, in stupid U.S., SHOULD) entitled to use it in whatever personal device you feel like using. The content is independent from the media; so as long as you don't spread it to anyone else (although in Germany and other countries you CAN do that, to close relatives and friends) you are fine. Written law means NOTHING if it's not followed by legitimacy; what the RIAA says is simply absurd and should be countered by all means.

cwedl
Feb 17, 2006, 06:46 AM
******* the RIAA

My thoughts exactly, why don't they grow up? I don't understand do they want people to buy music or download it illegally. They shouldn't be counting their chickens before they hatch.

Stella
Feb 17, 2006, 06:48 AM
RIAA loves to alienate its customers.

I bought the CD, I'll play it on any device I choose.

**** them.

thequicksilver
Feb 17, 2006, 07:00 AM
Genuine question:

If it is ruled that ripping a CD is indeed illegal, are the software companies that make this possible (and encouraged it (http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/mov/concert_144a.html)) going to be made liable too?

Photorun
Feb 17, 2006, 07:45 AM
Fine, I'll simply steal or hijack music then if my purchased CD isn't legal. Like other said here, **** 'em!!!

RIAA is definately NOT about music enjoyment or artists, only about greed, greed, and what's that other thing? Oh yeah, greed. I'll say it again, everyone should steal music, kill the existing old, white, rich, record labels, drive them and their lawyers and the RIAA into bankruptcy, music will live on, survive, and thrive, but the current larger industry needs to go down and be taken out. They're against the very people that make music, they're against the end users, they're in things only for their greed. **** 'em. **** 'em. **** 'em.

macnulty
Feb 17, 2006, 07:46 AM
Right or wrong, the RIAA position that putting a CD on a digital device is not fair use is irrelevant. Logic dictates that it is not enforcable in a practical manner. There are 10's of millions of mp3 owners that would have to be sued or somehow legally pursued, even a small percentage of actions would be meaningless. It is however a prelude to attempts by RIAA to force PC manufacturers to take more restrictive proactive measures to prevent CD from ripped to computers while at the same time to have restrictions embedded into CDs themselves, like we are seeing now.

iMeowbot
Feb 17, 2006, 07:56 AM
If it is ruled that ripping a CD is indeed illegal,
It won't happen that way. Fair use is irrelevant here because there is explicit permission to rip CDs. I suspect that there is more context that didn't make it into the EFF report; from what little EFF have reported it appears that the hearing was specifically about DRM schemes and not normal CD copying.
are the software companies that make this possible (and encouraged it (http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/mov/concert_144a.html)) going to be made liable too?
If the issue is DRM, Apple have already demonstrated willingness to support and strengthen it.

bbyrdhouse
Feb 17, 2006, 08:33 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

I suppose I should have to pay a liscence fee to listen to it in my car stereo,and another one for my DVD player that plays cd's, and another license fee to play on my Sony Discman, and another to play on my boombox.
Heck, we should all have to pay $15 for the priviledge of walking out of the music store with it in our hands. And onother $15 for the priviledge of listening to it on one device and another $15 for even thinking about how cool it would be to be able to listen to it on our iPods.

Why, they really need to institue a 3 day waiting period so a proper background check can be run so they can determine just how many players you own and then charge you accordingly.

GET REAL, this kind of nonsense only makes people want to pirate music more just to spite the RIAA.

This may sound cruel, but if an artist wants more money, then write more songs or better songs, or make more albums. In a free market society if you want more money then the answer is to make a better product.

otter-boy
Feb 17, 2006, 08:38 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

But that's the thing, we are just trying to do what we have been allowed to do ever since recordable media (make a copy for personal use). You should be more mad at the RIAA. Most people are willing to play by the rules if the rules are fair. The RIAA wants to make all but the most restrictive and expensive uses illegal. We've just figured that it is getting to be unacceptable to play by their rules.

I think indie labels need to make a clear statement that they are against DRM and for fair-use. I buy plenty of music from independent bands at their shows or through their labels. I think $10-$15 for an album that I can listen to on my stereo, computer, and iPod is great. I think $15-$25 for an album that is restricted to the stereo and another $10-$15 bucks for a version that I can play on my computer or iPod is ludicrous, so I almost never buy music from major labels, like Sony, that try to dictate how I listen to music that I have purchased. If they're going to charge more, they should at least add benefits instead of taking away quality/uses.

I don't download music not made available by the band who recorded it--so I'm not stealing. I do rip music I've bought into iTunes--and I'm still not stealing. Personally, I have no love for labels that whine. I will support bands and performers that I like, but most labels are getting to be an unnecessary evil that I will be glad to be rid of. I respect the ones that still care about good music and good bands, but few labels seem to even care about music anymore. I know the RIAA doesn't care one bit about music; they only care about $$$, and I'm not inclined to give my money to companies that support the RIAA.

guez
Feb 17, 2006, 08:39 AM
This whole thing is being misrepresented by nearly everyone. The text quoted in the ipodobserver article DOES NOT imply that ripping to an ipod is illegal, nor that is not fair use. All the RIAA is saying is the following (and I paraphrase): "We have said that ripping to an iPod is legal. This claim, however, was not a claim about fair use. Our statement merely reflects the fact that permission to copy in such a way is routinely granted."

Black&Tan
Feb 17, 2006, 08:46 AM
I'm thinking that this is a warning shot, fired across the bow.

Here's my take on this whole asinine situation. If you recall, a few weeks ago, the RIAA was bitching that they should be getting part of the profits from mp3 players. This is their next logical move. That either the mp3 manufacturers donate part of their profits to the RIAA or that they will seek to outlaw personal ripping.

otter-boy
Feb 17, 2006, 08:47 AM
This whole thing is being misrepresented by nearly everyone. The text quoted in the ipodobserver article DOES NOT imply that ripping to an ipod is illegal, nor that is not fair use. All the RIAA is saying is the following (and I paraphrase): "We have said that ripping to an iPod is legal. This claim, however, was not a claim about fair use. Our statement merely reflects the fact that permission to copy in such a way is routinely granted."

Their comment is merely a prelude to stating that they will revoke this right in the future and make it illegal. Come on, you got to know that.

If it is fair use, the right is irrevocable. If it is not, the RIAA can revoke the right.

jkhanson
Feb 17, 2006, 09:00 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

Although I agree that stealing music is wrong, I have a very hard time sympathizing with the record labels. Instead of trying to make it easy to buy and use music, they insist upon throwing up more roadblocks. Sony's rootkit fiasco is example number 1. The jerk from one independent label who was quoted yesterday saying that he won't participate in the iTunes music store because consumers can buy singles, rather than the whole album, is example number 2. Now, if the record industry is going to say that ripping CDs to iPods violates fair use, they will far exceed what any reasonable consumer would think is a reasonable restriction.

The record industry needs to realize that best way to sell more music is to make music more attractive to consumers, not less attractive. The iTunes music store has led me to increase my purchasing of music significantly, but it seems that the labels want to ruin this by raising prices.

bbyrdhouse
Feb 17, 2006, 09:19 AM
BC2610 is taking a verbal beating on this issue.

I am sure that no one is directly attacking BC2610, but it should go to show just how passionate people are over this issue.

RIAA should take heed.

jkhanson
Feb 17, 2006, 09:19 AM
Yeah because it is that simple to do your own distribution. Not to mention the profits made on digital sales are not nealry enough to keep a record label in business.

You should say, "digital sales are not nearly enough YET to keep a record label in business." Just the other day, as I am sure you know, Warner Music Group released its quarterly earnings. Overall, the picture is not so good. The bright spot is ditigal music sales. Why? Because they are the segment that is growing and because they are higher margin sales.

Technological change disrupts business models. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Fighting technological change is ultimately fruitless. Nevertheless, the record industry still wants to preserve the good-old-days when sales of physical CDs were king, but the transition is inexorably away from that method of selling music.

Record labels will do fine if they embrace new technology and sell music at fair prices and do not restrict their customers from listening to music as we want to listen to it. Buying one copy of a song should entitle us to play that song on whatever device we have, plain and simple.

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 09:40 AM
These guys are idiots....soon they will say that we have to listen to the songs in order as its on the album.

What are you doing? Don't give them more crazy ideas! :eek:

aquajet
Feb 17, 2006, 09:43 AM
This whole thing is being misrepresented by nearly everyone. The text quoted in the ipodobserver article DOES NOT imply that ripping to an ipod is illegal, nor that is not fair use. All the RIAA is saying is the following (and I paraphrase): "We have said that ripping to an iPod is legal. This claim, however, was not a claim about fair use. Our statement merely reflects the fact that permission to copy in such a way is routinely granted."

It most certainly does imply that ripping a CD to an iPod could be illegal.

To quote the original EFF foundation article:

"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."

(emphasis mine)

The implication here is that ripping a CD that you own, and subsequently transferring the music to an iPod, is infringing upon the copyright without prior authorization from the copyright holder. So esentially, if you don't ask the copyright holder for permission to rip your CD and transfer it to your iPod, then you are in violation of copyright law if you do so. Which, of course, begs the question: do you honestly think that the RIAA is going to set up a "hotline" for music buyers to call and ask for permission? I don't think so.

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 09:46 AM
So you agree with the RIAA on this one? I shouldn't be able to buy a CD and listen to it on my iPod?

I need a music license for every device I own?

Get real, dude. Music isn't software. Never has been.

Well, the same could be said for software. If somebody has more than one computer, but is the only user of said computers, should he pay all the copies for all the computers? How is he gonna use all copies at once? :confused:

Licenses should be for users, not hardware.

I'd like to drive around in my house, too. :p

Then, I have good news for you! You can! (http://www.hillwoodsales.com/photogallery/2004%20Motorhome%20Graphics%202.jpg) ;)

Yeah because it is that simple to do your own distribution. Not to mention the profits made on digital sales are not nealry enough to keep a record label in business.

Consider more than just emotion when making statements and actually use your brain.

Simple enough: there's at least half a dozen websites exactly for that purpose (and also iTMS). Also the profits on digital sales are a lot more than on conventionnal media (no CD, no packaging, no shipping, no volume discounts to take into account).

DrNeroCF
Feb 17, 2006, 10:04 AM
I don't buy software to buy software, it's just a bunch of ones and zeros, and I can't even do whatever I want with it. I buy software to support people, their efforts, their ideas... buying a cd gets me a far better quality version than iTunes, but I'm gonna do whatever I want with it, because that money isn't going to the artist (who I thoroughly support), but this ass of a corporation.

I should make a playlist with only music anyone can get free from the artists...

Here's a damn good start:

http://www.garageband.com/artist/carbonleaf

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 10:05 AM
And yeah, I agree with pretty much everyone who thinks the RIAA can stick it. Good thing I've been downloading on iTunes for two years now.

Yeah, because the RIAA sure doesn't get its usual cut from iTMS sales. :rolleyes:

The only way not to give any money to the RIAA is to stick with free music (overclocked remix, for exemple) and independant artists/labels (emusic.com comes to mind).

I don't listen to my CDs (which are in a box archived) AND my iTunes rip at the same time--nor do I sell the CD and keep the rip--so I don't see any grounds for this being unethical. I'm just playing the music I bought, for myself, by a means that's technically different from a simple CD player.

I do the exact same thing. I view my purchased CDs as being the "archive copy". I buy the CD, rip it once, then the CD is stored away.

What the RIAA wants however, is a new law. They don't care if you're being ethical or not in your CD usage. They just want to squeeze more money from you. :D

And hasn't done since the days of cassettes. It's only now they're digging it out and waving it around, again, because life as the Recording Industry knows it is about to end, again, like it did then. Like video killed Hollywood then too.

No, no, you're wrong! Video didn't kill Hollywood, it killed the video star (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=5195711&s=143455&i=5195697).

zap2
Feb 17, 2006, 10:15 AM
Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.


People do buy CD, but if you can't put it on your iPod, then what if Online Music Stores don't have the song you want? RIAA is killing music's soul(not apple_

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 10:22 AM
If you recall, a few weeks ago, the RIAA was bitching that they should be getting part of the profits from mp3 players.

The funny part is, if Esso and Shell and others would talk about demanding profits from Dodge, Nissan and BWM, everybody would think they're insane.

When it's the RIAA, however, it makes waves in the news as being "a possible future law". :rolleyes:

yg17
Feb 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
The RIAA can go ***** themselves. So, we have 2 scenarios:

1. Pay 15 bucks for a CD, rip it, put it on your iPod
2. Download said CD for free, put it on your iPod


If both are now illegal, then I might as well take the free option. If you want to support your favorite bands, download their music illegally and go to their concerts and buy merchandise such as t-shirts and whatnot. I'm sure they make more profit off of that anyways

zoetropeuk
Feb 17, 2006, 11:05 AM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.

The stupid thing is, sometimes copy protection FORCES you to rip your CDs. Take my recent purchase of Coldplays X&Y as an example. I'm one of these freaks that's obsessive about certain things, sound quality being one of them.

In the first instance I will, if I can buy the song or album from iTMS. I'll listen to it on my iPod or G5 and if I really like a track I'll purchase the CD to play on my home hi-fi system. When you've spent as much as I have on a system you can really tell a 128k AAC from a CD.

Anyway, I got home and proceeded to play my Coldplay CD, guess what, it didn't work. It took me about 2 hours of fluffing around to work out that the copy protection scheme was blocking my CD from outputting a signal via my digital optical output. This really p*ssed me off. I did the right thing by purchasing the CD and then I get screwed over. In fact I actually own TWO copies and don't have ONE decent high quality version to listen to.

The easy solution was to just rip the CD to aiff and re-burn it. Hurrah, it worked, no copy protection but 2-3 hours of my time wasted. I will from now on NEVER purchase another artists CD that contains ANY copy protection. So serve that on your plate and eat it.

The thing that really p*ssed me off was the fact that there is no mention of what exactly the copy protection scheme does. Record labels should be forced to display exactly what restrictions are applied but this would be to honest I suppose :(

Matt

IJ Reilly
Feb 17, 2006, 11:08 AM
This whole thing is being misrepresented by nearly everyone. The text quoted in the ipodobserver article DOES NOT imply that ripping to an ipod is illegal, nor that is not fair use. All the RIAA is saying is the following (and I paraphrase): "We have said that ripping to an iPod is legal. This claim, however, was not a claim about fair use. Our statement merely reflects the fact that permission to copy in such a way is routinely granted."

Exactly, thank you.

What's more, the RIAA can argue the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it true. They don't get to decide what is "fair use" of intellectual property and what is not.

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 11:42 AM
The RIAA can go ***** themselves. So, we have 2 scenarios:

1. Pay 15 bucks for a CD, rip it, put it on your iPod
2. Download said CD for free, put it on your iPod


If both are now illegal, then I might as well take the free option.

You forget the 3rd option: buy it on-line and get a limited DRM-locked file. I'm pretty sure the RIAA would like it if everyone stopped buying CDs and started buying files. The files are locked and their profit margins are much higher.

What's more, the RIAA can argue the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it true. They don't get to decide what is "fair use" of intellectual property and what is not.

One huge problem is the way laws are passed in many countries. Lobbying means the one with the money basically decides what becomes law.

IJ Reilly
Feb 17, 2006, 11:52 AM
One huge problem is the way laws are passed in many countries. Lobbying means the one with the money basically decides what becomes law.

I am well aware of of this. I am simply saying that people are getting bent out of shape for no real reason. Not only has the law on fair use not changed, any effort by RIAA or anyone else to change it will have far-reaching impacts which would be felt well beyond the music industry. Personally, I'd be far more concerned with copy protection schemes, which are taking away our fair use rights bit by bit (so to speak).

aquajet
Feb 17, 2006, 11:52 AM
Exactly, thank you.

But the implication here is that it is illegal if you don't request permission to do so.

Having said that, I agree the RIAA is full of ****. It certainly contradicts why the RIAA thinks CDs are a good value. From the RIAA's website:

A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, – or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years. That’s probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value.

IJ Reilly
Feb 17, 2006, 11:53 AM
But the implication here is that it is illegal if you don't request permission to do so.

They can imply whatever they like, but that doesn't make it true.

balamw
Feb 17, 2006, 11:53 AM
You forget the 3rd option: buy it on-line and get a limited DRM-locked file. I'm pretty sure the RIAA would like it if everyone stopped buying CDs and started buying files. The files are locked and their profit margins are much higher.
And yet, they continue to resist selling online, and will tinker with the system until they break it.

One reason being that they are used to the profit margin on a 10 song album, but are now seeing the return to a model driven by sales of single songs. So even though the profit margin per song is higher the actual $ may not be. (I personally think they would make loads more money if they really put their hearts into adopting the iTMS model or something like it, including their huge back catalogs...)

B

mrgreen4242
Feb 17, 2006, 12:03 PM
This reminds me... I don't buy much (if any) RIAA "owned" music anymore (and when I do it's usually a used copy, so they won't be getting any revenue from it anyways), and I use the RIAA Radar (www.magnetbox.com/riaa) to check for this. Trouble is that their site seems to be easily overwhelmed, and goes down fairly often.

Anyone know a mirror or a similar service to use?

Yvan256
Feb 17, 2006, 12:03 PM
And yet, they continue to resist selling online, and will tinker with the system until they break it.

One reason being that they are used to the profit margin on a 10 song album, but are now seeing the return to a model driven by sales of single songs. So even though the profit margin per song is higher the actual $ may not be. (I personally think they would make loads more money if they really put their hearts into adopting the iTMS model or something like it, including their huge back catalogs...)

B

Indeed! The back catalogs alone are a gold mine, but the RIAA are letting it rot in a corner... With on-line distribution, there's pratically no cost associated to keep all your available collection available for purchase... But they don't get it.

If the RIAA doesn't like the iPod and CD ripping, then let me propose this challenge to them: make us something as small as an iPod nano that can play any of 50 CDs it can store internally. Oh, and those 50 CDs must physically fit inside that iPod nano-sized player.

There. Unless they somehow re-invent physics, we're safe. :D

aquajet
Feb 17, 2006, 12:07 PM
They can imply whatever they like, but that doesn't make it true.

Under certain circumstances, it is true. The DMCA states that it is illegal to circumvent copy-protection schemes. In the case of copy-protected CDs, circumvention is required in order to rip the music onto a computer. This essentially means the transfer of such music to a computer, and ultimately to an iPod, is illegal.

IJ Reilly
Feb 17, 2006, 12:46 PM
Under certain circumstances, it is true. The DMCA states that it is illegal to circumvent copy-protection schemes. In the case of copy-protected CDs, circumvention is required in order to rip the music onto a computer. This essentially means the transfer of such music to a computer, and ultimately to an iPod, is illegal.

Point taken. As I said though, it's copy protection that should really be alarming because it strips us of fair use rights, not by law, but through the back door. My personal reaction is to never buy any copy-protected CDs, and hope that the music industry eventually gets the message that we won't accept them. Not that I have much hope -- this industry is notoriously thick.

Fortunately, music isn't like food or water. I can do without it, or at the very least, only buy from artists who don't treat their fans like criminals.

frankblundt
Feb 17, 2006, 01:24 PM
There. Unless they somehow re-invent physics, we're safe. :D
I'm not familiar enough with the DMCA to comment on it's specifics, but i would counsel caution nonetheless. In NZ and Australia this case was argued over in response to the introduction of cassettes (video and audio) and it's application to our copyright law (of 1966).

"Fair use" had traditionally been a clause used to protect the rights of researchers, teachers and students to make limited copies of limited amounts of texts. It has never been interpreted as permitting the photocopying of an entire text for example, but for a chapter or pages for the purpose of research or education. More recently it has been tightened (in case law) to exclude "archiving" whereby (for example) researchers made copies of papers in journals and stored them in case they wanted to look at them later. It has never been seen to permit the purchaser of a work the right to do what they like with that work, in terms of duplication. If teachers want to give out copies of an entire play to their drama students they are obliged to purchase multiple copies - this is not covered by "fair use".

"All copying, broadcasting blah blah of these works is explicitly forbidden unless permission is specifically granted by the licence holder" is a common enough phase to find on the back of cds. ALL copying. "Format shifting" is explicitly forbidden in our copyright law just to make sure no one gets confused about it. Although designed to explicitly deny the right to make cassette copies of vinyl it is broadly enough stated to encompass CD to HDD - "fair use" rights were thus specifically extinguished - a result achieved by an industry lobbying against the irreparable harm done to its profitability by home copying, JUST AS THEY ARE NOW.

I'm not saying that this is the case in the US (because i don't know) but if i were you i'd be on my toes because it can happen easily enough.

Here, RIANZ is taking the stance that it knows the law is an ass but is promising to "turn a blind eye" to the "criminal" actions of those who rip their cds onto their computers. It is lobbying heavily for NO alteration to be made to existing law, claiming that instead it will not prosecute anyone (cos they're nice guys, y'know) and will from now, or soon, grant limited use licences with the media it releases (enforced by DRM) and will thereby "fix" the current, ridiculous state of affairs, without the need for any pesky re-assessment of the law.

Where it will end up is anyone's guess, but they've got a sh-tload more money (and to be honest, interest) in getting their way than joe public have to stop them. If it hasn't already, don't let it happen to you.

ziwi
Feb 17, 2006, 02:01 PM
let me see...bought records and tapes, had to re-buy things I already owned to have CD quality, now they are saying I need to re-re-buy to get it on an MP3 player. I believe that half the reason people download illegally is because they have already owned half the music legally in a different format...sheesh - how many times does one need to re-buy the same stuff?

balamw
Feb 17, 2006, 02:06 PM
let me see...bought records and tapes, had to re-buy things I already owned to have CD quality.
You bought cassettes of music you already had on LP?

Unheard of! Most of us just recorded our LPs on cassette for the car/walkman/etc.... Some even traded tapes, an early and inefficient P2P system.

B

Gravity
Feb 17, 2006, 02:16 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!

Go look at the income statements of any record label (independent or major) and you tell me that these people are making a killing. They are hardley making ANY money for god sakes. Stop being such cheap whiners and buy music like we have been doing for 50 years.


I have made a CONSIDERABLE investment in music starting with the advent of the music CD in the 1980's. I am NOT going to RE-PURCHASE music I already own!!! I WILL purchase new music via iTunes... but I intend to convert every last CD into a form I can actually USE. It's not like I'm prohibiting other people from paying for the music...because I'm not sharing the files.

I'd like to know what the RIAA thinks of people coming over to my house...and I have my iPod hooked up to the stereo... listening to my songs without paying for them! How dare they!

aquajet
Feb 17, 2006, 03:16 PM
how many times does one need to re-buy the same stuff?

Every time there's a new format.:(

e-coli
Feb 17, 2006, 04:31 PM
Is it the 21st century yet?

c-Row
Feb 17, 2006, 04:34 PM
Consider more than just emotion when making statements and actually use your brain.

Most of us are still waiting for you to use yours and answer our previous posts... ;)

cslewis
Feb 17, 2006, 05:50 PM
If i've paid for the song I have unlimited personal use of it. That includes backup/iPod copies. Period.

generik
Feb 17, 2006, 05:54 PM
Then, I have good news for you! You can! (http://www.hillwoodsales.com/photogallery/2004%20Motorhome%20Graphics%202.jpg) ;)



I'm pretty sure he meant it the other way, as in.. driving (with his car) INSIDE his mansion! :rolleyes:

bketchum
Feb 17, 2006, 10:50 PM
While many bands do record themselves, or record in "home" studios and not the typical studio environment, the skill of a good studio engineer/mixer wont be replaced by software. That said, i concur, screw the RIAA.

A lot of people have said that software will not replace a lot of things. It has. Software has replaced a lot of things....faster every day. It's only a matter of time before software will help us create audio and video content, end-to-end, as good as the top studios, and we'll be learning how to do it within months... weeks... days. Software: The greatest playing field leveler. Exciting times.

dornoforpyros
Feb 17, 2006, 11:34 PM
As a manufacturer of CD's for Independent Record Labels I find all the talk of STEALING because you dont like the law despicable. People do OWN the music and need the income to support their families. Steal from your own plates not MINE!


As a purchaser of CD's FROM Independent Record Labels I find all this talk of RAPING your customers because the RIAA says it's OK dispicable. People do OWN the music and they need the freedom to listen to it on their own time with their family and friends. :p

bc2610
Feb 18, 2006, 09:27 AM
Most of us are still waiting for you to use yours and answer our previous posts... ;)

You have all convinced me that I should close up my business as there is no future in music as a viable business.

mvelinder
Feb 18, 2006, 09:52 AM
They just keep getting more laughable!

IJ Reilly
Feb 18, 2006, 10:52 AM
As a purchaser of CD's FROM Independent Record Labels I find all this talk of RAPING your customers because the RIAA says it's OK dispicable. People do OWN the music and they need the freedom to listen to it on their own time with their family and friends. :p

Actually, the artist owns the music. The CD buyer owns only the right to listen to it. This is an important distinction.

If the big record labels continue to create barriers between musicians and listeners, I see them driving more and more music distribution outside of the the traditional channels controlled by the industry and the RIAA. And it'll serve them right.

cgratti
Feb 18, 2006, 11:00 AM
You have all convinced me that I should close up my business as there is no future in music as a viable business.

No future, or no longer able to rape the customers anymore. Consumers are really tired of the antics by the record industry, $20 CD's are not going to fly anymore. You want people to stop downloading music illegally? Then lower the price for a CD, it's that simple.

toothpaste
Feb 18, 2006, 11:02 AM
Honestly, can someone tell me how the RIAA is going to know that I am ripping my cd collection in digital form for my ipod. Unless they have super secret ninjas hiding in my walls spying on me. :rolleyes:

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
Honestly, can someone tell me how the RIAA is going to know that I am ripping my cd collection in digital form for my ipod. Unless they have super secret ninjas hiding in my walls spying on me. :rolleyes:

If it came to it, music from "valid" online sources like iTMS is clearly identified by its DRM watermark. Your music, even if you rip it in protected format (m4p), doesn't have a watermark that goes back to an online store that has, in the RIAA's pea-sized brain, the rights to sell you music to use in your iPod. So everything on your iPod that isn't tagged with Apple's iTMS FairPlay or another DRM standard is presumed to be ripped.

So in principle, it's pretty easily possible. In fact if they took your iPod, it shouldn't take them long at all to do this kind of analysis, and it should be automated.

Not that I don't like the idea of spy ninjas. :D Not that I *do* like the idea of the RIAA. Pssh. The artists they themselves represent undoubtedly listen to ripped CDs that they own, just as much as the rest of us do. ;)

balamw
Feb 18, 2006, 11:39 AM
You have all convinced me that I should close up my business as there is no future in music as a viable business.
There will always be business opportunities in music, but you can't expect any existing business model will continue to be profitable forever.

Remember that recorded music has only been with us for less than one hundred years, and it has undergone various major transformations in that time. Most of these have been shifts in format from wax cylinders to 78s to 45s and LPs from reel-to-reel to 8 tracks to cassettes and finally to CDs, MP3s and beyond....

Recorded music itself displaced sheet music, and the sheet music publishers were up in arms when their business model was threatened, like the RIAA is now. Despite that there still is a valid business in sheet music, the market's just much smaller. Regardless, before, during and after that, most musicians have made most of their income in music from live performances. The artists who managed to make lots of money from sheet music or recorded music remain few and far between.

More fundamentally in recorded popular music the LP and some seminal rock artists introduced the age of pop/rock albums in the 60s displacing the singles and what we would call EPs now that were most of recorded popular music until then.

Albums had a good run, but now it seems that era is close to an end. I would suggest that this would have happened much sooner, but the format shift to CDs managed to sustain sales of albums through the 90s, and that the drop in sales had much more to do with the state of the business and the economy than P2P "stealing" from the business.

B

shamino
Feb 18, 2006, 02:00 PM
Well, the same could be said for software. If somebody has more than one computer, but is the only user of said computers, should he pay all the copies for all the computers? How is he gonna use all copies at once? :confused:

Licenses should be for users, not hardware.
It really depends on the product.

For system software (like Mac OS or Windows), it makes sense to require per-computer licensing. After all, a single individual can (and often will) have multiple computers up and running at once.

For application software (like MS Office), it makes more sense to require per-user licensing, because it is unlikely that one user can use it at a time. But this creates the problem of multiple users that share a single computer - you don't want to pay extra for that.

The most reasonable license I ever read was Borland's "No Nonsense" license. Quoting from my Turbo Pascal 4.0 manual, from 1987 (emphasis is theirs):
... you must treat this software just like a book. ...

By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this software may be used by any number of people and may be freely moved from one computer location to another, so long as there is no possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at another. Just like a book that can't be read by two different people in two different places at the same time, neither can the software be used by two different people in two different places at the same time. (Unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been violated.)
Does anyone know if Borland still uses this license? It's been years since I've bought any of their products. I wish the rest of the industry would use something similar.

guez
Feb 18, 2006, 05:36 PM
Their comment is merely a prelude to stating that they will revoke this right in the future and make it illegal. Come on, you got to know that.

Maybe. Maybe not. Have you ever met a lawyer? The RIAA's lawyers are telling them (prudently) not to concede the fair use point. What exactly do expect the RIAA to say? "We've looked at the incredibly vague precedent on fair use and decided to adopt a broad interpretation of fair use that will limit our ability to defend our legal interests in the future"?

sjk
Feb 18, 2006, 07:54 PM
Actually, the artist owns the music. The CD buyer owns only the right to listen to it. This is an important distinction.Actually, isn't it true someone other than the artist can legally own their music? But that doesn't diminish your point (which I was hoping someone would finally make, thank you) about purchasing listening rights rather than actual ownership.

[edit: would it always be accurate to say the artist is the original owner?]

cgratti
Feb 18, 2006, 07:56 PM
If it came to it, music from "valid" online sources like iTMS is clearly identified by its DRM watermark. Your music, even if you rip it in protected format (m4p), doesn't have a watermark that goes back to an online store that has, in the RIAA's pea-sized brain, the rights to sell you music to use in your iPod. So everything on your iPod that isn't tagged with Apple's iTMS FairPlay or another DRM standard is presumed to be ripped.

So in principle, it's pretty easily possible. In fact if they took your iPod, it shouldn't take them long at all to do this kind of analysis, and it should be automated.

Not that I don't like the idea of spy ninjas. :D Not that I *do* like the idea of the RIAA. Pssh. The artists they themselves represent undoubtedly listen to ripped CDs that they own, just as much as the rest of us do. ;)

And the day after they release this, someone smarter will find a way to remove the code in it to make it impossible to report that it is illegal. Just like Windows XP calls home, I know 50 people who have hacked it to use it without authorization.

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2006, 09:21 PM
And the day after they release this, someone smarter will find a way to remove the code in it to make it impossible to report that it is illegal. Just like Windows XP calls home, I know 50 people who have hacked it to use it without authorization.

Probably...although you're talking about the opposite effect. Of course you can hack a copy of Windows to use it without authorization, or a copy of an iTunes song to use it without authorization. But here, it isn't the ability to use the song that's in question, but the ability to demonstrate authorization. It's pretty easy for MS to tell, if they have your computer, whether or not your copy of Windows is legitimate, even though it will "work" and thereby appear legitimate.

So you wouldn't need to hack the songs to make them work. That would be easy, or even unnecessary. You'd have to hack the songs to spoof accurate DRM claims of ownership. That's much more complicated, because you have no way of hacking the other side of the handshake (the database at Apple, or wherever, which you claim is granting you authorization).

Don't get me wrong. I think this is silly and things should not get so out of hand to begin with. But the previous poster was asking if music that was not bought from a DRM'd, legal, online source, but was instead ripped (which I, of course, feel is also legal) could be identified as such. I think it can, and can be fairly readily, and it will be difficult to work around this. Not by a call home method, necessarily, but if you give me your iPod, and Apple, etc, cooperate, in principle, it would not be hard for me to tell which are the songs to which you have legal rights, and which are not. And I don't think this can be defeated easily.

winmacguy
Feb 18, 2006, 09:57 PM
Technological change disrupts business models. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Fighting technological change is ultimately fruitless. Nevertheless, the record industry still wants to preserve the good-old-days when sales of physical CDs were king, but the transition is inexorably away from that method of selling music.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Mass Hysteria
Feb 19, 2006, 05:23 AM
Can someone tell me if there is a difference between these two things:

1. ripping a CD into a different format so it can be used on an ipod

2. ripping OSX into a different format so it can run on a dell

mkrishnan
Feb 19, 2006, 09:51 AM
1. ripping a CD into a different format so it can be used on an ipod

2. ripping OSX into a different format so it can run on a dell

An interesting point. The major differences, I think, would be these two:

1) The biggest difference is the time-shift argument that was born with VCRs. This doesn't apply to everyone using OS X on unsupported x86 hardware, but to many at this point. When you rip a song for your iPod, you don't then give the CD to your friend and have them use the CD while you use the iPod. Or that is, if you do, then more people than just the RIAA agree that this does not constitute fair use. OS X for x86 is not currently for sale; unless you are actually disinstalling it from the Intel Mac hardware you bought that came with it, you cannot really make an argument for time or space-shifting, since you are using both the copy and the original simultaneously. Although, I think it's a valid point here, that Apple's failure to offer to sell you the product to begin with is a mitigating factor. When Leopard comes out, and x86 install discs are actually made available for sale, and you buy one, and run it on a Dell, and only on that computer, I think the space-shifting argument would apply much more strongly than it does now.

2) The explicit license you receive with OS X, that you agree to when you install it, indicating its use only on Apple hardware. With computer software, you have the right to return it if you decline the license. AFAIK, the record industry has never provided a clear statement of user rights with their products.

bc2610
Feb 19, 2006, 11:51 AM
No future, or no longer able to rape the customers anymore. Consumers are really tired of the antics by the record industry, $20 CD's are not going to fly anymore. You want people to stop downloading music illegally? Then lower the price for a CD, it's that simple.

As a manufacturer I only make close to .15 cents per disc. I have no ability to set other prices. What I can tell you is that labels sell to distributers for between $3 and $6 a cd. My point being is that it is the retailers and distributers that take advatage of consumers and not the labels. People have had their ire in the wrong camp for years.

bc2610
Feb 19, 2006, 11:53 AM
There will always be business opportunities in music, but you can't expect any existing business model will continue to be profitable forever.

Remember that recorded music has only been with us for less than one hundred years, and it has undergone various major transformations in that time. Most of these have been shifts in format from wax cylinders to 78s to 45s and LPs from reel-to-reel to 8 tracks to cassettes and finally to CDs, MP3s and beyond....

Recorded music itself displaced sheet music, and the sheet music publishers were up in arms when their business model was threatened, like the RIAA is now. Despite that there still is a valid business in sheet music, the market's just much smaller. Regardless, before, during and after that, most musicians have made most of their income in music from live performances. The artists who managed to make lots of money from sheet music or recorded music remain few and far between.

More fundamentally in recorded popular music the LP and some seminal rock artists introduced the age of pop/rock albums in the 60s displacing the singles and what we would call EPs now that were most of recorded popular music until then.

Albums had a good run, but now it seems that era is close to an end. I would suggest that this would have happened much sooner, but the format shift to CDs managed to sustain sales of albums through the 90s, and that the drop in sales had much more to do with the state of the business and the economy than P2P "stealing" from the business.

B

Funny thing is that I also own a vinyl reocrd factory in Scranton, PA. That business is booming and has been for years. Can't bootleg vinyl!!!

t1rider321
Feb 19, 2006, 12:52 PM
What can we do with our cds?

frankblundt
Feb 19, 2006, 12:57 PM
I can only go on local pricing - Manufacture: $2 (and this is me sourcing small runs of 500 from Oz, i imagine the big boys can probably halve that), Label: $13 Distributer: $19, Retail: $35

In many cases the splits are different, like when there's a marketing, production & distribution deal, and the label basically only does the recording.

Either way, the point that ought not be lost is that the artist gets bog all. Manufacturers can live off low margins because their volumes are high (and if they're not they probably shouldn't be in business. Retail often has large margins because of the amount of stock they have to hold and (often) high overheads. I'm well aware that indies often struggle too, particularly when only one in ten artists on a label will sell enough to recoup the cost of recording, manufacturing etc. But don't lose sight of the fact that, even if all those costs are paid, the artist only gets an even smaller cut off the bottom figure.

It's an extremely difficult industry to make a living from and most artists (even acts like the Rolling Stones) get their income from shows and merchandise. Albums and singles are done more for posterity and to get your music out there than anything else - very few make money out of them.

Given this, it's hardly suprising that artists are looking at new ways of getting their music out into the world and finding that the net is ideal for just that.

From our point of view, we'd rather people were able to download our stuff and enjoy it than not be able to hear it at all (we've had whole albums for download, but my bandwidth can't handle it..). Copy it, burn it, give it to your friends. We're a pretty niche sound and this is the only way to get it far and wide enough to find those weirdoes out there that actually enjoy it.

If occasionally we strike someone who likes it enough to want to give us money, come to a show or buy a t-shirt then that's brilliant, we might make enough money to press up the next album. If not, then i'll pay for it myself because i think the world deserves it.

Funny thing is that I also own a vinyl reocrd factory in Scranton, PA. That business is booming and has been for years. Can't bootleg vinyl!!!
People love vinyl in a way they never will cds, it has nothing to do with bootlegging and everything to do with collectibility, physicality and analog.

frankblundt
Feb 19, 2006, 01:11 PM
Can someone tell me if there is a difference between these two things:
1. ripping a CD into a different format so it can be used on an ipod
2. ripping OSX into a different format so it can run on a dell
There is no comparison. One is an experience that cannot be enjoyed simultaneously in duplicate, the other is a tool that can.

shamino
Feb 19, 2006, 02:19 PM
Actually, isn't it true someone other than the artist can legally own their music? But that doesn't diminish your point (which I was hoping someone would finally make, thank you) about purchasing listening rights rather than actual ownership.
US Copyright law distinguishes between the owner of the copyright and the owner of a copy.

Anyone who buys a CD is the onwer of a copy. You have the right to do anything you want with that physical disc. Play it on any device you like, rent it, sell it, burn it.

Only the owner of the copyright, however, can authorize duplication (not counting specific exceptions, including the right of libraries to make archival copies, and "fair use".)

As for who the copyright owner is, by default, it is the person that created the work. But there is also the concept of "works for hire". For instance, if you work for an ad agency and compose music for them as an employee, they own the copyright. Recording labels take advantage of this by getting artists to sign contracts that make them contractors working for the label, so their music is technically a work-for-hire, and the label ends up owning the copyright.

Although the practice is legally valid, it is morally bankrupt. It attempts to take the work of an individual, and treat it as a product produced by a massive corporation (like a feature film, which is the product of hundreds of creative individuals, most of whom are actual employees of the production company.)

Marky_Mark
Feb 19, 2006, 04:16 PM
There is a very similar (but much shorter) thread on this subject here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=180737

Perhaps the mods would like to merge them? :)

Mass Hysteria
Feb 19, 2006, 06:08 PM
Can someone tell me if there is a difference between these two things:
1. ripping a CD into a different format so it can be used on an ipod
2. ripping OSX into a different format so it can run on a dell

There is no comparison. One is an experience that cannot be enjoyed simultaneously in duplicate, the other is a tool that can.

Unless my other half plays a CD while I'm out with the ipod! ;)

Both 1 and 2 are about intellectual property, I can't see a difference (legally).

OSX comes with a license agreement to only install on apple hardware – is that legally enforceable? wouldn't a court consider it as fair use to put it on whatever device you choose?

PlaceofDis
Feb 19, 2006, 06:10 PM
Unless my other half plays a CD while I'm out with the ipod! ;)

Both 1 and 2 are about intellectual property, I can't see a difference (legally).

OSX comes with a license agreement to only install on apple hardware – is that legally enforceable? wouldn't a court consider it as fair use to put it on whatever device you choose?

the OS X license is leagally enforceable.
there is a difference between ripping a cd and installing OS X on a different machine.

IJ Reilly
Feb 19, 2006, 06:36 PM
US Copyright law distinguishes between the owner of the copyright and the owner of a copy.

Anyone who buys a CD is the onwer of a copy. You have the right to do anything you want with that physical disc. Play it on any device you like, rent it, sell it, burn it.

Only the owner of the copyright, however, can authorize duplication (not counting specific exceptions, including the right of libraries to make archival copies, and "fair use".)

As for who the copyright owner is, by default, it is the person that created the work. But there is also the concept of "works for hire". For instance, if you work for an ad agency and compose music for them as an employee, they own the copyright. Recording labels take advantage of this by getting artists to sign contracts that make them contractors working for the label, so their music is technically a work-for-hire, and the label ends up owning the copyright.

Although the practice is legally valid, it is morally bankrupt. It attempts to take the work of an individual, and treat it as a product produced by a massive corporation (like a feature film, which is the product of hundreds of creative individuals, most of whom are actual employees of the production company.)

Freelance writers typically face a "work-for-hire" clause in their contracts. In fact, very few newspapers or magazines will even consider buying freelance material if the writer insists on retaining ownership of the copyright. These days, publishers treat freelance writers like a plantation owner might treat an indentured servant. It's a very bad deal for writers, but beyond "moral bankruptcy," it's also a function of the buyers market in writing, and the currently poor state of the publications industry.

frankblundt
Feb 19, 2006, 06:50 PM
Unless my other half plays a CD while I'm out with the ipod! ;)
Both 1 and 2 are about intellectual property, I can't see a difference (legally).
OSX comes with a license agreement to only install on apple hardware – is that legally enforceable? wouldn't a court consider it as fair use to put it on whatever device you choose?
I suspect the OSX issue is to do with branding. Apple consider the hardware/software integration part of the Apple brand experience - if you had people running X on a Dell that would uglify the Apple experience and tarnish the brand value. That's why they have this caveat (and others don't).

If musicians had enough clout and were anal enough about their "product" and had the ability to do so, i'm sure they would also limit the ability of the user to play it through a tinny POC stereo. They can't, so they don't.

As far as copying goes, it's true that multiple people can enjoy your music in the scenario you describe, but it's not all that different from playing a cd to a room full of people at a party. This is undoubtedly a grey area, but it would seem heavy handed in anyone's eyes if it were required that all guests at a party were required to pay license fees in order to hear your music. What happens if you (as the rights holder) leave the party for half an hour to go to the shops? Should you shut down the music while you're out?

The law is very vague when it comes to this kind of "fair use". Is it the multiple listeners that is the issue, or limiting copies for use in different situations, or should it be one of location? Does streaming to a different room of your house at a party count as "broadcasting"?

The blanket ruling of copying as illegal that the RIAA suggest is not a solution in that it rules out perfectly reasonable "fair use", like in my case, where all of our CDs are in a closet now (basically as a backup), because it's all on iTunes. Is there any difference to me taking a copy of some of it to listen to out of the house, while the original's still playing at home, than to both of us listening to the tracks at home?

It is hard to draw the line between a situation where you take your iPod into work to listen to it compared to burning a copy of the CD to take in. For the most part the distinction lies in it being more likely a solitary experience in the former and more likely a communal (by non-rights purchasers) in the latter. More or less likely is a pretty vague basis for legislation.

I'm not saying that the RIAA is entirely wrong on this, I can see their point of view on it, but their approach is wrong in that it does nothing to reduce the level of confusion about what exactly it is that should be limited and is an unfairly blunt solution to a very complex problem.

shamino
Feb 20, 2006, 08:30 PM
As far as copying goes, it's true that multiple people can enjoy your music in the scenario you describe, but it's not all that different from playing a cd to a room full of people at a party. This is undoubtedly a grey area, but it would seem heavy handed in anyone's eyes if it were required that all guests at a party were required to pay license fees in order to hear your music.
This isn't gray at all. There is no problem whatsoever about private performances. Public performances require a license fee. The copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html) uses the following definition:
To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

This includes commercial contexts. A DJ doesn't need to pay license fees for a private performance (say, if he's hired to play at a wedding). He (or the venue owner) does, however, have to pay license fees for a public performance (like a bar.) Of course, private or public, he still can't play pirated discs.

In case you're interested in how this works in practice venue owners typically buy blanket licenses from "performing rights societies" like ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/), BMI (http://www.bmi.com) and SESAC (http://www.sesac.com/). They collect fees (based on the size/type of the venue, amount charged for admission, etc.) which they redistribute to their member copyright holders, and issue blanket licenses for the music owned by their members.

If the RIAA is starting to claim that private performances require additional license fees, they are flat out lying. There is no such requirement anywhere in the law. (Although I'm sure they'd love to rewrite the law if they got the chance.)

Mudbug
Feb 21, 2006, 09:43 PM
There is a very similar (but much shorter) thread on this subject here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=180737

Perhaps the mods would like to merge them? :)

nah - the other seems more civil. We'll leave them separate.

frankblundt
Feb 21, 2006, 09:57 PM
This isn't gray at all. There is no problem whatsoever about private performances. Public performances require a license fee.
...
If the RIAA is starting to claim that private performances require additional license fees, they are flat out lying. There is no such requirement anywhere in the law. (Although I'm sure they'd love to rewrite the law if they got the chance.)
That's kind of what i was saying.. ;) (obviously not clearly...)
It seems as though they're trying to push the angle that copying is somehow related to moving the music into the public performance domain, which in some cases it is, but that's not really the point.

I know people in the local PRA and I think they way they operate is much clearer and a great deal more sensible than the approach the RIAA is taking - basically if you're making money from the music, whether it be as background in a commercial setting where it provides value (restaurant, gym or taxi), as part of a paid performance (play, film or ad) or is related to your income stream in any way (radio, subscriber podcasting) then you pay a licence fee.

If it's for your own enjoyment, in your own environment then it's none of their business because they've already collected the royalties from the original sale.

Performance licensing law is clear cut, "fair use" and duplication law is not, that's the problem.

ChampD1012
Feb 22, 2006, 07:21 AM
Big Boi's Got Purp Vol. 2 is Copy Protected....and it won't import to my iPod. They keep making these disc...i'll start using my money for another hobby and download music like I did in college. Screw the RIAA...

jer2eydevil88
Feb 22, 2006, 07:29 AM
ATTENTION PLEASE!!!! Would the real world please knock those stupid executives out with a sucker punch to that special place between their legs?

Seriously though if we can't use a CD for ripping then we might as well not buy music at all... Oh wait I'm already most of the way there.. haha

shamino
Feb 22, 2006, 04:48 PM
Big Boi's Got Purp Vol. 2 is Copy Protected....and it won't import to my iPod. They keep making these disc...i'll start using my money for another hobby and download music like I did in college. Screw the RIAA...
Have you tried ripping it from a Mac?

Between iTunes implementing error correction and the fact that most of these "protection" schemes rely on Windows security holes for auto-installation, Mac users have (so far) been immune from this nonsense.

If you don't have a Mac, maybe you have a Linux installation? The malware used to implement copy protection doesn't auto-run from there either.

If you must run Windows, hopefully you can uninstall or otherwise remove the protection software. Unfortunately, you may have to reinstall Windows to do this right. IIRC, the Sony rootkit scheme permanently damages Windows if you try to uninstall it.

To prevent Windows from re-installing the malware the next time you insert the CD, disable auto-insert notification and autorun from your optical drives. Some google searching will tell you how. Without the protection code installed, iTunes (or anything else) should have no problem ripping the contents.