Awesome!
Wait, shit.

Someone needs to take out RIAA's Hive. Honestly, does anyone really buy a lot of the shit that comes out today? Heady annoying voices, no diaphragm to speak of, really awful background track. When labels stop signing crap like Shakira, Fallout Boy and K-Fed, and only sign actual TALENT, they might not need to be fucktards. However, what would it be like of we had nothing but intriguing, interesting multimedia entertainment? Could we handle it??? I'm reminded of the John Baptiste Philouza sketch on Mr. Show.

@Ceark

I think they have toilet paper that says that on Jinx.com

This raises more questions like, Can I burn music to a CD that I bought on iTunes? There was never a physical copy. And again, what happens when that music goes to my iPod? I do kinda feel bad for the RIAA, after Napster and Kazaa(mostly) are extinct, they must spend a lot of time in their cubes just being bored. Someone should buy them UT3 and then they can have LAN parties and leave us the hell alone.

So, in other words it's only legal to own the copy we physically or virtually buy and limit that to being the only copy we own?

Fuck those fuckers and every-fucking-thing they motherfucking stand for, fuckers.

Soon this will come to fruition

The current music distribution model is irrelevant. It doesn't make sense anymore.

of course, it tooks a gooooooooood while until the powers that be would let anyone ruin their parade. Money and power buys a big inertia.

Distribution in CDs has no place today anymore. The sooner it dies, the better.

JA JA JA.
I feel some sorry for them, they made big money on the 90.

Ok they need to drop this silly stuff.

Wait, Sony said that about copying their music?

Last I checked, they were willing to sell you the hardware to duplicate the CDs and the PS3 to rip music onto....Hell, they will sell you the media to back up your music and movies also.

Honestly, I dont think this is a case they could actually win. TV and movies tried it with the VCR and we all know how that turned out. Most likely its a tactic to scare settlement checks out of people for small amounts, since any sort of judgement they would recieve in a court from someone probably wouldn't even cover their legal fees, if it was recoverable at all. I know if they sued me for a buck fifty, Id have to give it to them on a 10 year payment plan right now.

Why doesn't the government step in and stop them?
I wrote my senator about this and told them to do something about this

The RIAA needs to be disbanded

if you can't even do that with your cds, why bother buying them in the first place. just download music for free and skip the middle step of making some bastards rich in your illegal endeavors.

i think we should counter sue all the companies that make the products that allow us to illegally rip, record, store, playback, etc. all of our media. if i can't burn a cd of mp3s, shouldn't (company name) be at fault for selling a product that specifically advertises that feature on the box? or microsoft or apple for inclusing the ability to rip cds onto your computer and burning new cds from said material?

i remember when it was illegal to copy a cassette tape. but then i buy a cassette tape from, say, sony entertainment, then i have my dual tape deck that is made by sony that allows me to record a copy of the cassette tape onto another tape. it's all just a bunch of silly bullshit.

the problem as I have always seen it is this:
the RIAA argues that you buy a LICENSE to use the music and not the music itself- that the media is in itself not yours do do with as you see fit so-
hypocracy #1
the RIAA says that copying to a device is a violation as it is an unauthorized "copy" (though you supposedly already own the license)
hypocracy #2
if you have in fact purcased the LICENSE and not the media then by an unsaid agreement that you have to have access to the media, if the licensesd material becomes damaged stolen lost or the media becomes outdated, you should have the music replaced for free, as you no longer have access to the music which you have already bought a license for.
hypocracy#3
in the RIAA lawsuits many different people have been sued over the same files shared- the RIAA claims that the 250k per song that they sue for is to recover losses of the song distributed, but at the same time will sue for the same file on another persons' computer- so the 250k penalty is NOT for a single song distribution, it is a personal penalty which is not allowed in civil court.
hypocracy#4
the RIAA claims losses based on projections of growth, when the RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) claim x amount of losses in the industry that loss is based on how much growth was projected for the industry and not how much physical loss happed to the companies (though how you can measure intent to purchase I have no idea). this leads to inflate #s in the industry to act the victim with regardless of how much they would have made in sales eg: the MPAA actually had their highest grossing year ever, but still claims that they lost $ based on projections

lol im fucked i have 14000+ songs on my pc. i hate bittorrent and limewire:P

Screw them

@DOOM
Then you're just not looking hard enough.

This is absolute garbage. I know that I am one of a very few people that I know who are still willing to buy the CD of a band that I care about. Can suing the people that have already paid to have "the privilege" of purchasing the CD's that have made these record labels rich in the first place, really turn back the clock & paint the labels in a favorable light? The labels are using a business model that in kind words can only be described as out-dated. I don't claim to have the answer to their problems, but suing the people who have already paid to own the music that they are selling is completely back-asswards.

Oh, and whores.

I think if we all downloaded our music for free off of Limewire and Rapidshare we could avoid copying music from our CD's to PC's.

They've really already lost this one. Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

I have Songs Ripped from Sega CD and Sega Saturn disc (Yes some of them had the Soundtracks on them)

The best part is that it's been this way for a long time. Technically when you buy a song/cd you are only paying for the right to use that music NOT to copy it. So by making a copy in any shape or form you're breaking the law. Now there's no way they'll ever be able to inforce it so we've got nothing to worry about, but it is quite stupid. My dad works for Sony and they've issued a company wide announcement that they aren't to have any music on their computers that can't be proven as the original copy they paid for; otherwise they'll be fired.

@reddye_5:
Thank you very much for that heads-up. Now I have another weapon to put into the face of one specific person who just doesn't get it.

Ya know, this is a prime example of why we should be allowed to carry guns around in public. If some RIAA moron came a knockin', I'd come out shootin'.

Guns don't kill people. The RIAA just ticks people with guns off.

"So is this to say that we're technically leasing the cd's we buy?"

Not exactly leasing, but close. And I'm surprised to see everyone surprised. You own the CD as a physical object and a (very) limited set of usage permissions on the content. That's what you buy. The same is obviously true for movies, books, videogames...