Re: What the RIAA is doing is Illegal!!!
Originally posted by davidc2182
I just figured this out, ok so if you copyright or patent something its yours, you own it, right? But if someone comes along and changes it, like with inventions, its technically new and not subject to the original patent. Same thing with these songs, thats how Weird Al can mock all these popular artists, because the song sounds almost identical, so listen up, when you make an MP3 or an AAC file, you are deleting the unhearable audio, and lowering the quality, and compressing the data, which we can all argue is a significant altering of the original copyrighted material, therefore its not the same material, therefore its no longer under copyright protection. It's kind of how Lindows takes advantage of Winblows DLLs without getting sued to hell, so what do you think? sounds good right?
-davidc2182
Well, that sounds good, but that's not the way intellectual property law works. When a song is copyrighted it's usually with two. One, the recording - the notes in the unique order that sets the song apart from all others. It has to be deemed unique enough to be copyrightable. And two, the title of the song to the recording, therefore the name is copyrighted with those particular notes and genre of song. These are set in stone - and as a musician, I'm happy about this.
There are exceptions to these rules however. One is the Parody. It is acknowledged that it has a basis in someone else's IP, and is different enough to pass muster with the lawyers. This is copyrightable in it's own right should it pass the legal test. As for "ripping" or "dubbing", this goes under the "Fair Use" clause. If I am the licensee of the CD (which is how the law views it - I don't own the content, just the physical disk), I can sublicense from myself onto other media. But I do not have the right to transfer that sublicense to others.
As a musician I'm happy about that too.
As you say
"if you copyright or patent something its yours, you own it, right? But if someone comes along and changes it, like with inventions, its technically new and not subject to the original patent. ", this is nt true at all. That original IP needs to be addressed, or there will be a major suit. If a technology is invented that can even be argued to appear similar, there will be a suit - even if the second inventor lived in a cave without any way to know his invention isn't already that original. Usually the USPTO catches these similarities without the need for lawers, and simply denies the patent, but some slip by.
The RIAA is right in their interpretation of the law, as much as some would like to disparage them for other activities, they own their IP and we would be wrong to copy it without their permission. Ergo the word "Stealing", because that's exactly what it is.
However, I strongly disagree with the RIAA's tactics -
that is where I feel they are in the wrong - even if it's perfectly legal.
