NEW RINGTONES FOR EVERREADY AND MLK
- Thread starter skai21
- Start date
what's this have to do with loyalty?
- I bought the CD...once I did so I'm legally allowed to transfer said music to other media so long as I don't make money off of it. Instead of making a copy to a CD-R I copy it to my phone and it just happens to play everytime someone calls me.
- NOTHING on MLK is ringtone status anyway...I reserve that for the classics. That means he wouldn't have gotten my $2 or whatever anyway
- I bought the CD...once I did so I'm legally allowed to transfer said music to other media so long as I don't make money off of it. Instead of making a copy to a CD-R I copy it to my phone and it just happens to play everytime someone calls me.
- NOTHING on MLK is ringtone status anyway...I reserve that for the classics. That means he wouldn't have gotten my $2 or whatever anyway
Actually, legally, you DO NOT have the right to transfer said music to other media. Technically, you are violating federal law whether you make money of it or not.
For the Record: The RIAA Position on Home Copying
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents the interests of record companies, and indirectly, the interests of the artists, backup musicians and vocalists, and songwriters whose music they produce. The RIAA cannot speak for all record copyright owners, let alone the songwriters and music publishers who own the copyright in the musical works embodied in every recording. Each copyright holder individually has the right to interpret--and enforce--his or her own copyright rights as he or she deems appropriate. So what follows is merely the RIAA's view on home taping generally.
Any unauthorized reproduction of a sound recording is technically a copyright infringement. It does not matter whether the reproduction is from a CD to a cassette tape, from a CD to a hard drive, or from a CD to a CD-Recordable disc. In reality, however, no record company has ever sued a consumer for copying music for noncommercial purposes. Moreover, since 1992, with the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act, consumers have been allowed immunity from lawsuits for copyright infringement for all analog and some digital recording. Importantly, however, that immunity does not extend to recording by means of general-purpose digital recording devices, including almost all of the CD-R and CD-RW devices on the market today.
The problem record companies have with home copying is its aggregate impact. One individual making one copy is not going to cause significant harm. But millions of individuals doing the same thing can, and do, cause extraordinary harm. And with the advent of the Internet, a single individual can do incalculable damage all by himself.
It's important to understand that record companies make their money virtually exclusively from the sale of records. If records aren't sold, but are copied instead, the business of making music suffers. Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, and at some point, can no longer make a living in the music business; record companies don't recoup their investment, and at some point, are no longer able to invest in new artists and new music. In the end, the losers will be those who love music--because the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the U.S. music industry cannot exist without financial support. The winners are the companies that make copying machines and blank media; they profit from selling their devices to consumers who want music without having to pay for it.
What record companies want and need is a technical means of preventing unauthorized transmissions and preventing or limiting copying. It happens that such a technical solution is already available with respect to CD copying. Every CD has a copy protection bit encoded in it. If the software used to copy CDs on CD-R machines would simply read for that bit and disable the record function when the bit is found, the aggregate damage caused by unlimited CD copying could be avoided.
For the Record: The RIAA Position on Home Copying
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents the interests of record companies, and indirectly, the interests of the artists, backup musicians and vocalists, and songwriters whose music they produce. The RIAA cannot speak for all record copyright owners, let alone the songwriters and music publishers who own the copyright in the musical works embodied in every recording. Each copyright holder individually has the right to interpret--and enforce--his or her own copyright rights as he or she deems appropriate. So what follows is merely the RIAA's view on home taping generally.
Any unauthorized reproduction of a sound recording is technically a copyright infringement. It does not matter whether the reproduction is from a CD to a cassette tape, from a CD to a hard drive, or from a CD to a CD-Recordable disc. In reality, however, no record company has ever sued a consumer for copying music for noncommercial purposes. Moreover, since 1992, with the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act, consumers have been allowed immunity from lawsuits for copyright infringement for all analog and some digital recording. Importantly, however, that immunity does not extend to recording by means of general-purpose digital recording devices, including almost all of the CD-R and CD-RW devices on the market today.
The problem record companies have with home copying is its aggregate impact. One individual making one copy is not going to cause significant harm. But millions of individuals doing the same thing can, and do, cause extraordinary harm. And with the advent of the Internet, a single individual can do incalculable damage all by himself.
It's important to understand that record companies make their money virtually exclusively from the sale of records. If records aren't sold, but are copied instead, the business of making music suffers. Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, and at some point, can no longer make a living in the music business; record companies don't recoup their investment, and at some point, are no longer able to invest in new artists and new music. In the end, the losers will be those who love music--because the breadth and depth of the musical talent supported by the U.S. music industry cannot exist without financial support. The winners are the companies that make copying machines and blank media; they profit from selling their devices to consumers who want music without having to pay for it.
What record companies want and need is a technical means of preventing unauthorized transmissions and preventing or limiting copying. It happens that such a technical solution is already available with respect to CD copying. Every CD has a copy protection bit encoded in it. If the software used to copy CDs on CD-R machines would simply read for that bit and disable the record function when the bit is found, the aggregate damage caused by unlimited CD copying could be avoided.
Thats bull shit man, I'm not a hater or anything but damn im sure yall make way more money then any of us, let us make copy's of the cd's we purchased, for our own use or so we can have it on our computers to listen to and also let us rip the cds to our portable devices its not harming nobody. Thats all i have to say FTI
You are not payng attention are you?
As far as making more money, I learned as a kid "You gotta spend money to make money". Strange Music spends a lot of money to make records, promote the product, send artists on tour, etc. This is a risk on the part of Travis and Strange Music. Reality is that if the record does not sell, all that has been spent is lost. I just made a point of letting people know that what the reality of copying is...oh and FYI....
The R.I.A.A. also recognizes, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA.
http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw2.htm
As far as making more money, I learned as a kid "You gotta spend money to make money". Strange Music spends a lot of money to make records, promote the product, send artists on tour, etc. This is a risk on the part of Travis and Strange Music. Reality is that if the record does not sell, all that has been spent is lost. I just made a point of letting people know that what the reality of copying is...oh and FYI....
The R.I.A.A. also recognizes, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA.
http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw2.htm
you learn something everyday...like the fact that the RIAA and the law are a good 5-10 years behind technology.
either way...
if I ever had even half a suspicions that a record company would sue because I put the music I bought on another device...my iPod (which, according to the above, is illegal unless the mp3 itself was bought directly, no?), a CD-R, my phone, etc...you can bet I would never buy another release from that company.
And I would sell anything ever bought from that company to a record store that buys used CD's. Or sell them on eBay...recoup some of the cost at least. I wonder why making money off a release that way ISN'T illegal (or is it?...i'm not reading that whole thing
), but using the music I bought in a way that doesn't make money IS illegal?
It's not like the ringtone market in and of itself has any effect on the market for full length albums anyway. If I'm not mistaken there was a period of about, oh 100+ years where recorded music did just fine without the additionalsale of 20 second long snippets of entire albums.
either way...
if I ever had even half a suspicions that a record company would sue because I put the music I bought on another device...my iPod (which, according to the above, is illegal unless the mp3 itself was bought directly, no?), a CD-R, my phone, etc...you can bet I would never buy another release from that company.
And I would sell anything ever bought from that company to a record store that buys used CD's. Or sell them on eBay...recoup some of the cost at least. I wonder why making money off a release that way ISN'T illegal (or is it?...i'm not reading that whole thing
), but using the music I bought in a way that doesn't make money IS illegal?It's not like the ringtone market in and of itself has any effect on the market for full length albums anyway. If I'm not mistaken there was a period of about, oh 100+ years where recorded music did just fine without the additionalsale of 20 second long snippets of entire albums.
It's really a vicious cycle...
A certain % of fans say the hate major label music and download it instead.
Major labels don't make as much money so they are forced to put their money into projects that they know can make money (ie the ones you think are shitty).
In the end if more people actually bought music there would be more money to go around and more underground artists would have deals like back in the 90's.
Not saying go buy a Clay Aiken CD or anything, but it's just food for thought.
A certain % of fans say the hate major label music and download it instead.
Major labels don't make as much money so they are forced to put their money into projects that they know can make money (ie the ones you think are shitty).
In the end if more people actually bought music there would be more money to go around and more underground artists would have deals like back in the 90's.
Not saying go buy a Clay Aiken CD or anything, but it's just food for thought.
identity-x said:
you learn something everyday...like the fact that the RIAA and the law are a good 5-10 years behind technology.
either way...
if I ever had even half a suspicions that a record company would sue because I put the music I bought on another device...my iPod (which, according to the above, is illegal unless the mp3 itself was bought directly, no?), a CD-R, my phone, etc...you can bet I would never buy another release from that company.
And I would sell anything ever bought from that company to a record store that buys used CD's. Or sell them on eBay...recoup some of the cost at least. I wonder why making money off a release that way ISN'T illegal (or is it?...i'm not reading that whole thing), but using the music I bought in a way that doesn't make money IS illegal?
It's not like the ringtone market in and of itself has any effect on the market for full length albums anyway. If I'm not mistaken there was a period of about, oh 100+ years where recorded music did just fine without the additionalsale of 20 second long snippets of entire albums.
either way...
if I ever had even half a suspicions that a record company would sue because I put the music I bought on another device...my iPod (which, according to the above, is illegal unless the mp3 itself was bought directly, no?), a CD-R, my phone, etc...you can bet I would never buy another release from that company.
And I would sell anything ever bought from that company to a record store that buys used CD's. Or sell them on eBay...recoup some of the cost at least. I wonder why making money off a release that way ISN'T illegal (or is it?...i'm not reading that whole thing
), but using the music I bought in a way that doesn't make money IS illegal?It's not like the ringtone market in and of itself has any effect on the market for full length albums anyway. If I'm not mistaken there was a period of about, oh 100+ years where recorded music did just fine without the additionalsale of 20 second long snippets of entire albums.