RIAA Says CD Ripping, Backups Not Fair Use

Spinner

Arstechnica has posted an article discussing the RIAA's latest arguments against copyright infringement.

View: RIAA says CD ripping, backups not fair use

As you can see, the argument is hinged partially on the cost of replacements. Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"

Submitted by drasnor.

Source: Arstechnica

MiracleManS

I know I can't be the only person who finds this ridiculous. So, basically, anything I buy, now, isn't mine. Like wallet I bought, I can't fix it because I can easily replace it. That's not fair to the people who make wallets, because everytime something goes wrong I should buy a new one. I guess building my own computer isn't fair either, because people already build them. I can't stand stupidity, this is as bad as this one company shutting down lyric and tab sites because they own the "rights" to tab and lyrics for different artists.

Garg

It's beyond rediculous. I believe (and I hope I'm not wrong) there's strong precedent for the backup of purchased audio, so hopefully that will stand.

If RIAA keeps taking a super-hardline approach, people will rebel. Maybe not riot in the streets, but piracy would become rampant beyond their worst fears.

There's always a backlash to the hardline approach.

Deicist

You know, originally copyright was intended to ensure creaters of art got due credit for their creations, not to ensure a steady revenue stream for their corporate masters. Artists had to rely on actually performing or creating new work to make money, rather than having one good idea and being quids in for the rest of their lives.

Unknown

I agree^^^

This has gotten to the point of me wanting to punch everyone on/in the RIAA in the face, and then find a bunch of friends to finish my work. Why are they so bent on more money, dont they already make around a million or more a year, personally. and the artist arent exactly starving.

I think the artist should get money, but where is the point that it becomes public domain instead of the artist sucking on that song for the rest of their lives, I think that they should perform to make money. wont the supreme court grow a spine/some balls and tell the RIAA to go and whine to someone who cares. Honestly, every thing they say/proclaim seems twice as rediculous as the last. Who founded the RIAA and what the hell were they thinking.