the white drew carey

Pat Payne- Nah. As long as Wrylac and I keep it civil and keep it here, we're allowed to sound like broken records as much as we want. Don't worry... one day I'll turn him over to the light side of the force!!!

Here's a headsup guys, in case you didn't know:

According to this comment made on the Slashdot website, it sounds like the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on:

Quote:

Contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it appears that making a copy of an audio recording may be perfectly legal in the US, even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists, copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html

[cornell.edu]

In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result *ALL* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now legal in the US, regardless of media:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html

[cornell.edu]

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed

http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1...93-01/0018.html

[cni.org]

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:

"In the case of home taping, the [section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings."

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:

"In short, the reported legislation [section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."

Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html

[cornell.edu]

Napster tried to use this law to defend their case, and the court ruled this law did not apply to them because they are a commercial company. But as a consumer it seems to me you are perfectly within your rights when you make a copy for noncommercial private use.

Two things I'm curious about that makes this kind of iffy-

1) The article states that this tax is paid to RIAA companies. Would that mean that congress has decided only to give this money to certain record companies, and yet make ALL music available under this law?

I think that would be kind of ripping off the hundreds, if not thousands of other record companies, both large and small, that are not part of the RIAA.

2) While I haven't perused the links themselves, it seems there's more behind the law than just what Slashdot has decided to report. Already the words "private noncommercial use" bring up questions as to what the intent of that statement. It could possibly be argued that "private noncommercial use" and "home taping" were not intended to endorse making said audio recordings publicly available.

Maybe this is the loophole everyone is looking for. Maybe it's not the skeleton key after all. Time will tell, but it does make things a bit more interesting.

Billie Holliday didn't sneer as much as Billie Idol does.

I've noticed that many MWers, myself included, like to illustrate different aspects of our point via A), B), C), etc.

But, as you can see, the B part turns into B).

Is there anyway that smiley can be changed... or do we have to start numbering our points as 1), 2), 3), etc.?

Seriously though, you have to admit that the media industries in the US have a severe stick stuck up their pooper... and this whole situation may bring it all to a head.

The media INDUSTRIES... yes.

But I don't buy their music. Most labels which would be considered part of the "industry" are part of the mainstream radio set. Labels that uber-promote their artist and create a "superstar". That's an aspect of the major-label's system which creates a self-perpetuating machine that needs to make lots of money off of CD's simply to promote their next big thing.

What's sad is when bands like Green Day or Blink 182 sign to a major label. These bands were doing just fine on smaller labels but felt the need to be bigger and hence, signed on to become part of the machine. The problem is that for every already-successful band that makes it big after signing to the majors, there is 10 other already-successful bands that signed to the majors and fell through simply because they weren't marketed and/or marketable to the mainstream radio set (ie- Samiam, Jawbreaker, Face to Face).

Most of the music (about 99%) are band son smaller labels who make an adequate living and want to stay that way. They're not making total bank, but are living comfortably with what they do make and are actually having fun doing it, instead of bruning out likfe most products of the "industry" do.

But the problem with file swapping is that 10,000 people can download Metallica's new album and Metallica won't even feel it. But if 10,000 people download Chixdiggit!'s new album (when it ever comes out), that's about half of the total pressing for that band, and Chixdiggit! will feel it in their wallets.

The point being that Chixdiggit! probably makes about $3-4 per CD sold, whereas Metallica probably makes about $.50.

So the argument that fileswapping doesn't hurt the artist isn't true at all. It probably doesn't hurt artists on major labels, but smaller bands who make a higher percentage from each CD will get slaughtered.

As long as cheapskate file-swappers (who would probably steal from a small, independent label who doesn't charge a lot for their CD's and pays their bands lotsa yen as unashamedly as they'd steal from any RIAA-participating label) will simply admit that what they are doing IS technically illegal, I'll be happy with that. But it seems no one will actually do that.

Then I'll wait for them to bitch and moan when their favorite band can't put out albums as much as they used to because they had to get a 9-5 job in order to make money.

I'm just sick and tired of the FIGHT THE EVIL RECORDING EMPIRE attempt at justification when, frankly, you just don't want to pay for things.

Ech... I'm just sick of arguing the point. People's battle lines are already drawn and that's that.

NEW ICON SETS!!!

PM me if you'd like these sent to you as well.

STOP!!!

IF YOU WANT ICONS SENT TO YOU:

Pick which sets you want from the list below and PM me your e-mail address with the set numbers.

IF I'VE SENT ICONS TO YOU:

I've fixed the problem where several icons have black boxes around them when not being used in

the dock. PM me if you'd like the updated icon files.

Yellowlightman- I forgot

Eming- Please PM me your e-mail address.

Combined Arms- Kick ass avatar. My favorite plane in the whole wide world.

I'm currently trying to fix up several icons. For some reason, when they are not used in the dock specifically, the background is black instead of clear. Let me see if I can fix them and then I'll e-mail them off to you.

Here's another one that's just personal taste, but certain elements of the VF-19A seem a tad pixelated. I took the image and threw a single blur filter on it to kind of smoot things out.

Original on the left, blurred on the right.

Here's an exercise in logic for you:

1. CD burners came out and the RIAA did nothing.

2. CD-Rs came out, and were priced very low, and the RIAA did nothing.

3. MPeg creates the MP3 techonology and the RIAA did nothing.

4. Software companies created programs that would allow you to use all 3 points above in unison and the RIAA did nothing.

But, once the internet exploded and all 4 points above started being used in unison, then they started doing something. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

I would think the RIAA did nothing because each and everyone of those points could essentially be proven in court as a tool for benign purposes.

2. White Drew

Posted: Sep 8 2003, 02:25 PM

Simply put, though, downloading music is illegal unless it is gotten through a legitmate service or by the artist/label themselves.

People just like to use the "Sticking it to the man/RIAA!" excuse to justify thievery.

True, but you're missing another point. MP3 piracy is exactly what's supposed to happen in capitalism. As far as I'm concerned, when the RIAA makes competitive MP3 services available, then d/l-ing illegally is morally wrong.

Ummm... I don't remember anything I ever learned in school stating that stealing a product is a normal part of capitalism.

The RIAA doesn't feel they have to make a competitive MP3 service, they're already selling CD's, and that is the competetion. Beside that point, there are already several pay services online. THAT is direct competition. But people still fileswap because THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. I think it's funny that so many people are using so many excuses to jusitify their actions when the real reason they fiileswap is because it's free.

In summation- People can argue the point with me all they want. And I do agree that this whole situation is a big fiasco and the RIAA is just a self-preserving beast. But the simple fact is that I am pointing out what the law currently dictates in this situation: Owning an MP3 of a copyrighted album or song without also owning a legitimate production copy of that album or song is illegal. Making available, for free, over the internet that same song/album is illegal.

I mean, you do realise that this is the same issue on whether or not it's OK to bootleg Macross productions that are legally available here in the U.S. (such as the TV series, MacII, Mac+ and, to some odd extent, DYRL)?

PS- Many people are mentioning the big labels and the bands that only put out one good song per album as a major point in their argument. Seriously, do yourselves a favor and go to a local concert. ANY CONCERT. Go to a local music store and ask where their label sampler section is. You can get a CD of about 25-30 songs showcasing all the bands on a certain small label (or in some cases, several labels) for the about $3-$4, literally the production cost of the CD. The moment you realise there's a whole world of bands out there who aren't played on the radio or aren't on a major label and are actually self-promoting and being reasonably successful at it, you'll immediately feel better. You'll start respecting these bands who put (gasp) 10-12 good songs on a 10-12 song album. You'll want to buy their CD (usually straight from one of the band-members at the merch table) for $10 because you know most, if not all, of the money is going to the band.

Great news, I loved FM3 although I don't know if I can rack up another total of 250+ hrs. for this installment (or for any other game for that matter). But then again, seeing an enemy Wanzer crumple into a heap after being slammed by giant brass knuckles is pretty damn satisfying.

You ain't just whistlin' dixie!!!

I want to be a Wanzer when I grow up.

I hope this game is released over here. My wife is in grad-school now so I need something to occupy my time when I'm not working!!!

What for all that is good and holy are you talking about?

Like, lineart blanks, or what?

What's even better is a lot of bands on indie labels will sell CDs on tour for a lot less, because many indie labels will give them a box and just make them pay for manufacturing, so the band reels in all of the profit.

I really don't like using the whole blanket statement 'downloading music is illegal' crap that the record industry puts out.  Half of the albums I own, are live sets and concerts that have never been released onto CD - is the music industry going to come after me because of this?!?!  I would love to sign up for some of those music services - like apples' - if they can guarantee me that the live albums I have (Radio 1 releases and such) would be available for download.

Well, that's part of the question. Are the tracks you have legally recorded from a live concert? Technically, you can't record live music unless the band/label/venue/promoter says you can. Otherwise, those are bootlegs as well.

But will they go after you? No. Because they're assuming you bought the legit albums when they were released.

Look at the Grateful Dead. The bootleg tapes you could find of that band outnumbers their actual releases about 1000 to 1!!! But the fanbase, for the most part, would still buy the studio albums when they were released.

But still, the music industry is really just pointing out the law. Music is copyrighted and, by buying the album, your just buying the privilege to listen to the music that they own. This goes beyond what the record industry says and is based in U.S. Law and concurrent laws in other countries.

Does the record industry need a wakeup call to their arcane business practices? Yes.

Is the RIAA taking the completely wrong route with it's current course of action? Yes.

Is downloading music that is not officially available on the web illegal? Yes.

Have I ever downloaded music? Yes

Was it officially available by the band or their label? All of it.

Does any of this effect me? Not really. For the most part, I listen to bands on smaller "indie" labels that treat one of their bands with more respect than a Large Multi-Corporate Label treats their whole catalog.

No, I'm a digital girl!

Seriously though they need to drop the price of CD's by, ALOT! $8 seems fair for a one disc album, $10 - $11 for imports. Sell singles for $3 -$4.

That's the pricing that most indie labels have. But then again, the artists on indie labels get A LOT more out of their album sales.

One wrong part of your equation is the Import pricing. The pricing on imports shoudl acurately reflect the cost of getting it into YOUR market from somewhere else.

One of my favorite bands, The Wedding Present, had imports in the late-eighties that ran $25-$30 a CD, because only one copy would make it over at a time. Once they became semi-popular (but before their CDs started being released domestically) the price of the imports dropped down to about $15-$18 in an Indie record shop.

Simply put, though, downloading music is illegal unless it is gotten through a legitmate service or by the artist/label themselves.

People just like to use the "Sticking it to the man/RIAA!" excuse to justify thievery.

You misconstrue what I'm saying.

My point is that HG didn't ignore Macross because they didn't have any rights to it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to misconstrue, I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say, especially here.

That's because I'm long-winded. It takes me ten minutes to say "Yes."

Very good, skill-wise.

I'd have to say I like the YF-19 better because I think the whole Matrix thing is so incredibly over-done.

This is just my way of doing things, but whenever I do a wallpaper I intentionally leave dead space on the sides and bottom for people to put their folder and application icons. But that's just me.

Here's part of the problem- Viewing cosplay is different for everyone. Some people just want to see hot chicks in little outfits. Others want to see what hard work and perseverence turn out as in an incredibly detailed and intricate costume. Whereas a LOT of people just want to see how foolish a lot of coplayers look when their costume just doesn't work out.

By the way, I think the Man-Faye was 1) Obviously a joke, and 2) One of the most hilarious things I've ever seen.

With the "pro-active" roll that all serious MWers have taken lately, policing a cosplay thread in order to deter trouble makers is as easy as clicking the REPORT THIS POST button.

For BoB, anything more than a handful is a waste.

"Anything bigger than a handful and you're risking a sprained wrist." -Gary (played by Anthony Michael Hall) in "Weird Science".

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Although I'd never read, played, or even heard of these games, someone I was talking to knew of them extensively and said the trailer for Underworld even demonstrates the outright thievery.

Did HG ignore Macross and RT for a long time? Yes. Does that mean that they give up their rights to it? No. At least not according to current evidence already mentioned. And, BW has never accused HG of mishandling the license.

You misconstrue what I'm saying.

My point is that HG didn't ignore Macross because they didn't have any rights to it.

Their sudden "ownership" was simply an attempt to dissuade competition. Just as their "C&D letters" to the e-tailers was an attempt to clear the market for their upcoming MPC toy. Mind you, an attempt which failed due to HG's refusal to back up their claims with anything resembling tangible proof.

j_wong00- Excellent example. I used to do pharmacy purchasing for the University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics and we kept a keen eye on lawsuits such as that in hopes that the generics would win, so we could save money.

Well, not entirelly true...

If you're talking about something Macross, especially from the TV series, it'd be best to name drop Robotech in order to get readers hooked. But that's about all. There's no reason afterwards to keep calling it Robotech when it clearly is not Robotech.

Here's one.

Hey....i didn't know that was yours! I saw it in newtype's fan art section a few months back.

Yeppers, that was me.