Poor Stacie Somers..

She is about to learn that this is a very fast paced world that she lives in. With the ink still wet on the court document, the offerings of music free of copy-protection restrictions expanded. Amazon.com was selling DRM-free music before Stacie filed her silly little lawsuit..

I’ll tell you who I am mad at…whoever it was that is responsible for forcing this young lady into going to Target and making her save a few bucks by purchasing the cheaper ipod.

Wait a sec..that would be Stacie herself..Hmmmm!

Stacie, sweetie, to keep the spirit of technology going..I’ll leave you with a little Styx tune that I’m sure you can get from one of the many online retailers..

“Too much time on my hands, its ticking away with my sanity
Ive got too much time on my hands, its hard to believe such a calamity
Ive got too much time on my hands and its ticking away from me”

Seems as though now you won’t be able even to do that is RIA has thier way.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/12/31/download-uproar-record-industry-goes-after-personal-use

QUOTE from neowin site.

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing. But in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: in legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings. “I couldn’t believe it when I read that,“ says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.“

RIAA’s hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: “If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.“ The industry “will continue to bring lawsuits” against those who “ignore years of warnings,“ RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. “It’s not our first choice, but it’s a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law.“ And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

Original News from Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

A Dec. 30 Style & Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry “maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.“ In a copyright-infringement lawsuit, the industry’s lawyer argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant, were illegal because the songs were located in a “shared folder” on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network.
Guess where your IPOD song folder is… It is in a shared folder.

THE LISTENER
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

 
TOOLBOX
Resize Text

Save/Share +
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
Print This
E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 353 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

Comments are closed for this item.
Discussion Policy
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who’s Blogging
» Links to this article
By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry’s lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

“I couldn’t believe it when I read that,“ says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.“

RIAA’s hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: “If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.“

They’re not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota—the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury—Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That’s $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers—an act at the very heart of the digital revolution—has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry’s own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it “won’t usually raise concerns,“ as long as you don’t give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that’s exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.“ Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy,‘ “ she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don’t usually kill off old media: That’s the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA’s legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only “created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies,“ Beckerman says. “Every problem they’re trying to solve is worse now than when they started.“

The industry “will continue to bring lawsuits” against those who “ignore years of warnings,“ RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. “It’s not our first choice, but it’s a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law.“ And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

Please ignore the following in the above…
THE LISTENER
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

TOOLBOX
Resize Text

Save/Share +
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
Print This
E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 353 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

Comments are closed for this item.
Discussion Policy
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who’s Blogging
» Links to this article

That was me copying the Washington post page and it had embedded tags in the article..

Dont worry about that mistake James..that’s why they call this the Morning Buzz..with some of us..it aint wore off from the night before..

They sure are cracking down on those downloads..

Me personally..I’m still making the change from cassette tapes to CDs..I’m old school and proud of it..

I couldnt tell you the difference between an iphone and a payphone or even worse an MP3 to an MP4…these are things that I truly dont need floating around in my head..

If someone gave me an ipod..I’d think they didnt like me…

I have been able to add the music I import into iTunes from CD to two of my previous phones by syncing in Windows Media Player, both of which were mp3 players that were not made by Apple.  My current phone is a Motorola RAZR and my previous phone was a Kyocera Jet.  I have never tried to do this with another brand of mp3 player like Zune, Zen or Sony Walkman, but would assume if I can see the music in Windows Media Player to sync them with my mp3 player phones, then I should be able to add the music to another mp3 player by another brand name. 

I may have to go out and buy a cheap-o mp3 player to see if I am able to sync it up with the music on my computer.

Check out my blog on this site, Click Here.

Seems as if RIA gets their way you will only buy songs to play one time and on one player.

They are saying now that copying a purchased CD to your IPOD/IPHONE/MP3 Player or to your Computer is a Copy write violation.

The true sad part is that all of the MP3/Ipod/and others copy everything to a SHARED folder.

I have even heard of them prosecuting someone remaking a song with them singing then sharing it online.
Ashlee just by you importing those songs… RIA says you are violating the Law.

Scary isn’t it.

Can you advise me where I can upload photos to iPhone? Which folder? (sorry for off topic)