RIAA opposes new Fair Use bill



I just posted the article RIAA opposes new Fair Use bill.

After previous bills to amend the DMCA had failed, a new bill to amend the DMCA targeted at protecting fair use rights for consumers is a cut down version of earlier attempts. This bill is…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13050-RIAA-opposes-new-Fair-Use-bill.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13050-RIAA-opposes-new-Fair-Use-bill.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


"As pretty much expected the RIAA is opposing this bill claiming it will allow electronics companies to encourage others to break the law for profit and that the bill effectively legalises hacking. " Yeah Right! Like the history of payola and gratuities to DJ’s and broadcasters and disputes concerning artist royalty payments are examples of your member’s high standards of integrity? This stance by the RIAA, that it will impossible to differentiate between hacking for non-infringing use and hacking to steal, clearly shows their attitude towards consumers. - We are all crooks unless we prove they aren’t. Since when is a nation full of consumers required to shape its laws to facilitate profit for record companies and destroy reasonable fair use? The RIAA has spent years forcing consumers to adapt to its perspectives. They have worked to destroy fair use. They have employed jack booted methods to protect their interests. They have shorted artists on royalties, pushed harder and harder to get their hands on publishing royalties and have increased the burden on artists financially while claiming they are trying to protect those artists. If the RIAA were to continue unbridled they would stifle technologies, destroy fair use, hinder hardware manufacturers and increase the cost of hardware to consumers while restricting the use and versatility of their product. Perhaps this new legislation will finally force the RIAA to adapt to changes in technologies and the prevailing market rather than screaming and whining to congress and the Justice Department because they want more money. The industry has been chipping away at fair use for years and finally there is pending legislation aimed at clarifying fair use and making it clear that it can not be whisked away under some seemingly twisted concept that the public is out to hurt the record companies. Too bad RIAA. I guess your members will have to start wining and dining politicians all over again. Good luck - Your efforts to “educate” your public are starting to pay off. *laughs


“If the RIAA were to continue unbridled they would stifle technologies…” Here’s a great example: Waaaaaaaay back in the late 90s the RIAA sued Diamond Multimedia for making the RIO. The RIO was a hard drive based .mp3 player. Basically a prehistoric IPOD or zune. Because the RIAA FAILED in court we now have all these portable players. Electronics companies, wholesalers, and retailers are making money because the RIAA LOST the court case. Even the record companies are making money off the Itunes music store which exists because of the IPOD. Had they killed the RIO we may not have the Itunes music store and the music industry wouldn’t have made all that money from selling billions of songs. If I remember right Itunes was the first to let people burn purchased downloaded music to an audio CD. They had the least restrictive DRM for the time. (HINT: less DRM=more sales) Google it: riaa diamond multimedia Google it: itunes sales


The riaa actually opposes this fair use bill??? Now who on this planet would have ever thought that? (Of COURSE they oppose it)! :X


I disagree with the RIAA in this case, but there is strong legal precedent for recognizing certain behavior as being so predominantly for illegal use that simple posession of relevant technology is grounds for filing suit. O.J. Simpson possessing tech to hack DirecTV access cards is a good recent example. Logically related is the principle of restricting access to fully automatic firearms even though the basic right of gun ownership is constitutionally protected in America. Personally, I would argue that one case regards public and civil safety while the other is by nature an economic offense and thus less serious; but the courts seem to have taken the somewhat European socialist position of valuing legal consistency over the personal rights of a hypothetical innocent. The whole issue should be moot regarding ammendments to the already excessive DMCA, but that’s how the corporate weasels will frame the debate- both in the courts and in the halls of Congress.


…" certain behavior as being so predominantly for illegal use…" Yeah, but the MPAA and RIAA don’t differentiate. To them EVERYTHING illegal.