Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by bigandy, Jun 21, 2006.
[original article here]
If this is true, what a bunch of idiots.
I suppose next the RIAA will start installing surveillance devices in showers all across America just in case some of us fancy singing while bathing.
The RIAA deserves to go to remedial hell.
I can somehow understand this though, because I bet they're not talking about Karaoke but playback videos where these people fake to sing to the original song. As you can take the sound off the video, they're essentially distributing protected content without permission.
If it was in fact Karaoke though, that would be stupid.
Have you seen any videos on Youtube? The video and the sound quality is extremely poor.
Private performances of music where nobody is earning any money is perfectly within the realm of the Fair Use Doctrine. The RIAA needs to pull its thumb out.
From the EFF's web site:
I believe only the 0 condition is met whereas the 1st and 2nd are in favor of the RIAA and the 3rd is questionably a substitute for the original (since the full audio is there). A factor not listed but that may pertain would be the quality of the audio. However many people think AAC 128 is crappy quality so that's a hard line to draw...
I disagree with you on #1. If it's a video and not a sound recording, and the people in the video are amateurs in their own home, then it couldn't be an infringement. Again on #2, the video is of an amateur in their own home, how could that possibly be construed as being a substantial portion of the work? A video by nature is made up of audio and video, not simply audio. The same goes with #3.
A line needs to be drawn between parodies and intentional copyright infringement. If a person is simply thumbing their nose at the RIAA, fine, but if they're simply having some fun.... It's being taken way too far and the backlash will be strong when it arrives if it hasn't already.
You believe the copied work, the song, is a fact and not a creative work?
If a video is made of audio and video it is arguable that half the work is audio 50%. I don't even think that is point #2 though. I think it means did the user use the complete song or a snippet of the song? In most of the videos they use the complete song.
The effect on the value of the copyrighted work is that now anybody who wants to can download the complete song. Thus devaluing the copyrighted work.
I *do* agree with you that this is more parody than an attempt to "screw over the RIAA". People are doing this for fun and without malicious intent. All I'm saying is that based on the four factors above I believe the RIAA is in the lead.
Granted, however, it takes a good deal of expertise to rip the sound off of youtube. You either have to use WireTap, or find a way to download the video as a FLV file, find a program to convert flv to something useful, then extract the audio and re-export it.
Somehow I don't think that these web karaoke things are making a big dent in legal CD sales.
I seriously doubt it's making a big dent in them... but that won't stop them from arguing as such.
They have spoken about videos from websites such as YouTube, so this isn't an argument IMHO.
I don't think this has anything to do with the authors of the videos themselves for the reasons stated by some in this thread. I think it has more to do with the fact that YouTube etc are generating page hits and hence gaining advertising revenue based on them. As the uploader is predominantly responsible for the content (and a softer target) the RIAA cease and desists them.
Does this mean that O-Zone is going to sue the Numa Numa Kid?
Is THAT that that black dome is by my shampoo?
I suddenly feel extremely embarrassed.
The RIAA is so bent on throwing the baby out with the bath water.
IMO they are so looking for ANY profits, they are wiling to go after anything that moves. What is next, the MPAA going after the Star Wars kid?
I've got to disagree with you. Like Andy points out, there is advertising revenue. I doubt YouTube would be so generous with it server space and bandwidth if it wasn't profiting commercially. I agree with you on 1 and 2, and I think you hit 3 with the thought that a lot of people aren't big on sound quality (I mean...have you listened the stuff some people have downloaded onto their computers? miserable quality....I just don't get it...). So, with all four factors (maybe 3 if you give them the substitute) met, they are going to feel the need to go after YT and other sites. Letting this go sets bad precedent for when sound quality improves - prior response will get weighed into the case....
That being said, I think the RIAA is being a few steps beyond moronic with this. From what I gather, the karaoke thing falls more in line with parodies of the video or some other attempt to mock the song. I think you might be able to squeeze your argument in there, but who knows. Either way....they really are being silly....they "make a point suits" just aren't working anymore. What I would give to be a fly on Cary Sherman's or the General Counsel's wall....
The next thing I expect to hear is that the RIAA is suing people who play music at work.
I'm making money while my CDs are playing behind the counter at my café...and technically people could be tipping me because they like the tunes I'm playing...meaning I'm making money off the music. I'd better watch my back or get busted!
3 to 1 says he'd countersue for emotional distress.
i think the RIAA wants us to hate them
I don't think they care.
Then I expect the RIAA to sue Saturday Night Live and Ashley Simpson.
"It was reported today that the R.I.A.A. has secured copyrights to notes A, B, B flat, C, E, and E flat. In effect this will allow them to sue any garage band or tribute band, whether performing live or online, for substantial damages should the song contain any of those notes, no matter the octave. They are seeking to secure the other notes as well."
Would not put it past them though....