"Come get me, coppers"
Posted on 02/13/2006 11:02:23 AM PST by nickcarraway
If you sell your iPod and don't remove your music first, you could find yourself with the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) breathing down your back. The organisation last week told sellers in the US that doing so is a clear violation of copyright law and warned them that it's sniffing out for infringers.
Apple's rapid iPod refresh schedule, not to mention those of its competitors, have generated a tide of old music player offers in classified ads columns and on sites like eBay. Rather too many sellers are shipping their old machines with music libraries intact - some we've seen even make a virtue of the fact.
But it's illegal, not only in the US but also in the UK and the rest of Europe. As, incidentally, is ripping all your CDs and LPs to MP3 then selling or even giving away the originals. By disposing of your physical media, you're ending your right to use the music they contain. The RIAA's point, made in an MTV online report (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1524099/20060209/story.jhtml) is that handing over music on a music player is no different from duplicating a CD and selling the copy.
The only way around the problem is to either erase the iPod, or make sure it ships with only copies of the music - downloads if that's how they were obtained, or the original physical media. And don't keep copies yourself.
i-Tunes is not necessary for putting music on your iPOD. Even the iPOD software is unnecessary. Just use X-Play
Translation: X is evil, therefore I'm justified in doing Y.
That argument has been used throughout history to justify all sorts of ugly behavior.
America is firmly in the grasp of the trannical lawyers.
To be free we must eradicate them as the ruling class.
I suppose if I could duplicate the entire iPod so the orignal owner would still have theirs, sure. Especially if it reduced profits from a despicable industry.
"Gee, what's this button for?"
Agreed. But I have to tell ya, I don't feel the least bit guilty if I copy a tune to a mix tape or CD either. While that's probably "illegal" the solution is to jockey discs around to the point of insanity. Also totally impractical while driving.
Regardless, I don't listen to music too much these days and favor the radio anyway.
To add to your coming sleeplessness: Yes, in fact, the RIAA had agents visiting flea markets in this area for just that purpose. It made the newspaper. Of course, you don't have much to worry about if an ordinary person purchased the tape.
Not remotely. If I buy an mp3, and sell my mp3 player with that mp3 still on there... and I don't have any other copy of that MP3.. I have violated no law. RIAA is full of crap.
They have no way to know if a persons only copy of a song is on a MP3 player they are selling... or even where that song inately originated from. I bought a record in 1978... the record is now long destroyed, but I have lifetime right to hear that music... so if I download a song from the internet from that 1978 albumn I bought, and don't pay for it, I haven't broken any rules....
If I record it off the radio and then give a copy of that tape to my friends I have not violated any laws....
The fact is the RIAA is outdated, not needed, and deathly afraid that the public and artists are going to realize this and their free ride will be over.. they are going to fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening... but that's the sad reality. THey are by and large the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century...
Fortunately the movie industry hasn't started to use shake-down tactics of the music industry.
No, it would be like selling the juke box and not keeping copies of the records for yourself while allowing the new owner to have them, too. One or the other of you can have them, but not both.
Meanwhile, over the years, the music industry has gotten over in a sense simply due to technology. The older posters used to own LPs, which they then bought tapes for, which now they've had to purchase CDs. Not complaining, but why should someone have to buy the rights to listen to the same damn album or song three or four times within their lifetime.
You won't get any real argument from me about this other than to say that their end of the agreement was to provide a single copy of the music on a medium that was acceptable to the licensee at the time of the transaction. They retained no obligation to perpetually provide replacement media because of wear and tear, loss, user misuse, or even technological advances. Offering a trade-in program would be nice, though - but not legally required.
I'm all for intellectual property rights, but the industry needs to focus on the "big dogs" abusing the system and not those that "make mix CDs" for themselves or sell I-Pods. Obviously they have to rattle the sabres a little bit...
It seems to me that the main focus of actual pursuit of violators is on those making it into a pirating business. That doesn't mean they don't want to remind consumers that just because there is little chance of being caught for a minor act of infringement that doesn't make it less illegal.
To point 1, if you sell the I-pod, then you no longer have the tunes, right? IDK as I don't have one. Presumably one could download the tunes from the Ipod to their PC or something I guess is where you're coming from, no?
Agree on point 3. To point 2, I guess my point is that they get enough money over the years from those technology changes, and while they are reasonable, shouldn't the "music makers" then owe royalties to the technology companies for getting them more bucks from the sale of their LPs to Cassettes to CDs to I-Pod tunes to whatever's next, etc.?
IDK, kinda silly, but if a consumer purchases a song on an album, and new technology comes out, why should the music makers be the primary beneficiaries of that change in technology when they've added nothing new. In many cases literally, since they quit making music a while back.
I suppose one could go round-and-round on this. Fun to discuss however.
I have a RCA Lyra and love it. I have mp3's on it. It's not a full gig, but big enough.
The Music Mafia takes your house, you go berserk, and run around burning down music stores????
I hate the RIAA.
I see X-Play is not freeware. Ouch! But I do understand your point. I still like how the RCA is just a flash drive that plays music files. Plus it has a few other things I like, such as an FM tuner with FM record capability and the single AAA battery design. So far, I'm getting about 20-30 hours per battery. It would probably go longer if I were using disposable batteries, but I like the rechargeable NiMH batteries.
I'm not saying that iPODs are not worth the money, I just think there are reasonable alternatives.
"Come get me, coppers"
Let's also add in the brain dead evaluators of patents at the USPTO handing them out for "software" like the left are willing to hand out abortions.
So long as both parties are Senators and Congressmen acting as if from the MPAA & RIAA, rather than the People, consumer rights and abilities will be curtailed ever more drastically.
u r a grossout ; )
Sounds like he's on the fence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.