Wipe your iPod before selling it, RIAA warns

[The Straight Story]

Wipe your iPod before selling it, RIAA warns

By Tony Smith
13th February 2006 11:52 GMT

If you sell your iPod and don't remove your music first, you could find yourself with the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) breathing down your back. The organisation last week told sellers in the US that doing so is a clear violation of copyright law and warned them that it's sniffing out for infringers.

Apple's rapid iPod refresh schedule, not to mention those of its competitors, have generated a tide of old music player offers in classified ads columns and on sites like eBay. Rather too many sellers are shipping their old machines with music libraries intact - some we've seen even make a virtue of the fact.

But it's illegal, not only in the US but also in the UK and the rest of Europe. As, incidentally, is ripping all your CDs and LPs to MP3 then selling or even giving away the originals. By disposing of your physical media, you're ending your right to use the music they contain. The RIAA's point, made in an MTV online report is that handing over music on a music player is no different from duplicating a CD and selling the copy.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/13/riaa_ipod_warning/

[mattclearing]

1. The RIAA needs to look in the mirror.

When they start going after the major labels for payola and screwing artists, I may give a shit what they say about my IPod.

Fuck the RIAA.

[tatertop]

2. I concur

[Halliburton]

3. what a joke the RIAA has become

:rofl:

[sharp_stick]

4. RIAA can kiss my ass

If they spent half the time they spend chasing kids down for downloading a song actually supporting new talent we may get a decent bunch of albums for a change.

[fiveleafclover]

12. Yes, maybe albums that are worth buying

rather than barely worth a free download. I hate to sound like an old fart, but music sucks these days. Damn kids.

[trogdor]

14. Our great-grandchildren will be listening to Led Zeppelin.

Led Zep is the greatest band that has ever existed. The staying power of their music is unrivaled. Kids hear today's crap and then hear some Zeppelin, and the choice is clear.

[fiveleafclover]

30. A good reason to bring art back into the schools!

My friends get tired of hearing me go on about this, but kids really need some art curriculum again. They need to have their creativity stimulated and encouraged. You take art out of schools, and what do you end up with? Bands like Dashboard Confessional and Nickelback, among other nasty things.

[sui generis]

5. fuck the RIAA and their "clear violations"

"Giving Away" anything is not a copyright infringement - and they would have to be pretty deep in your shit to try to determine that you had a second personal use copy sitting around.

While I'm certain they can sue you for it because the law these days ALWAYS takes the side of the corporation over the side of the individual, I think they're overstepping.

1st of all, how pervasive is this particular problem? Are people really buying a $300 iPod, loading it with music, and then selling it on eBay? How many? What volume of dollar loss does this represent to the industry? To individual artists?

It's overkill, and the RIAA is being a bully. I would dearly love to go nipple to nipple with them in court over an accidental "clear violation".

[derby378]

6. I'll pay for the sound of the recording with the sound of my money

Jingle Jingle Jingle

There. We're square.

[Canuckistanian]

28. Well said

What's done with said music is the choice of the one who now owns it.

Do hard drive manufacturers tell you what to do with their drives after you sell them?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

7. Fuck 'em. n/t

[Nutmegger]

8. RIAA = the new "Patriot" Act

Screw the RIAA; they give me no reason to care.

[jane_pippin]

9. Ridiculous.

Because, yeah. Burning some crap LP I bought used before selling it at a rummage sale for a dollar should be a crime. Riiiiiiight. :eyes:

[Armstead]

10. I suppose they also want to ban used record stores and tag sales

Friggin lunchboxes

Quick -- Bust the Salvation Army. I bought a used album there.

[MatrixEscape]

11. The RIAA

Gangsters are propaganda artists who have taken copyright issues to a place their serves them, not their customer base.

Not have they traditionally exploited and ripped off the artists, they are guilty of criminalizing their customers as they peruse a quick fix to their own lack of effort and foresight to get in line with the Digital age. They don't note that the consumer's dollar for entertainment shrinks as more options and forms emerge. The average person can only afford so many services, gadgets, movies, CD's, etc., etc.

Copyright issues date back to our Forefathers and their concern for the public domain. At this rate, nothing will go into the public domain and all the BIG corporations will own all intellectual property into perpetuity. This is an attack on the People's side of the equation and the public domain is in jeopardy.

I smell a "war on piracy" coming if they keep ramping up this. If the addicts to the RIAA's product-base don't wake up, then the musical crack they sell will raise the ante.

RIAA = Muscle for the fatcats and propaganda for shaping consumers into good little junkies who should know they are all criminals. They take your entertainment dollars and use it to threaten and intimidate you. Nice way to bite the hand that feeds you.

(this has been a public service thought crime)

[behindthe8ballnchain]

13. do you guys even know who the RIAA is ?

Being in (what's left of) the music business this thread is f'n hilarious. To start with I don't think most of you have a clue as to what the RIAA is. But they've certainly done a hell of a job raising your ire.


"When they start going after the major labels for payola and screwing artists, I may give a shit what they say about my IPod."

The RIAA isn't going to go after the Majors for payola or for screwing artists. The RIAA is a trade organization who's membership consists of...The Major Labels. BTW Elliot Spitzer just went after the labels for payola and now I hear he's going after the radio end of this equation.

"If they spent half the time they spend chasing kids down for downloading a song actually supporting new talent we may get a decent bunch of albums for a change."

First, the RIAA doesn't do anything to support or develop talent. The labels who belong to the RIAA (allegedly) do so. Next, the RIAA never sued a kid for downloading a song. They've taken legal action against those who've made cuts available for other people to download. Many cuts. 100s and 1000s of cuts. If you don't understand the difference I'm not surprised. They want you to believe they'll go after you for a single illegal download so they've never corrected the media for propagating this myth.

"Giving Away" anything is not a copyright infringement"

Ummm. Yes it is. The law clearly states that distributing copyrighted works without authorization is a violation of the law. There is no measure in a court of law in regards to commercial gain. You don't have to make a buck off it. Just potentially deprive the legit copyright holder from making a buck.

"Copyright issues date back to our Forefathers and their concern for the public domain."

Actually, Matrix close but no cigar. Our forefathers set up copyright law to protect the creators of intellectual works. Not to protect the public domain. The public domain already existed. BTW -Ben Franklin was a big proponent and had a lot to do with setting up the US Copyright Office and copyright law. His vision was simple. If those who create can earn from their creation they will be motivated to create. Of course his vision never included Mickey Mouse NEVER going into the public domain. A copyright used to be valid for the life of the creator plus 25 years. Then life plus 50. Now Disney would like to see that be life plus infinity....maybe not literally it just seems that way.

OK now that you all hate me I'll mention: I do not work for an RIAA member. I do not endorse anything they've done or are doing. They're short sighted and have the PR skills of Dick Cheney.

Now, back to the loaded IPod issue. They're correct, though they of course don't mention that this has yet to be proven in a court of law. Someone asked upthread if this is really prevalent. The answer is, yes it is. There's a cottage industry starting up where people buy an IPod, load it up with content and resell it to those who are too dumb to know how to load up their own IPod. At a hefty profit. It is a violation of copyright law as it is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material though as I mention that's just prevailing legal wisdom as yet untested in a court of law.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. It seems I, a foreigner, know more about the US Constitution than you do.

Article I, Section 8

"The Congress shall have Power To (do lots of things, including...) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01

So, it's neither what the other poster said nor what you said (but what he said is pretty damn closer to the truth).

[onenote]

22. actually, I think he/she got it exactly right

Absent a grant of power to enact laws governing copyright, there would be no such thing as "intellectual property" -- everything would be in the public domain. Because the framers felt that giving creative artists (authors, painters, songwriters) the ability to exploit the commercial value of their creations by control over their reproduction, performance, display, etc. was necessary in order for artists to have the incentive to create, they made sure that Congress had the power to enact Copyright laws. However, they made clear that the protection afforded by such laws wasn't permanent ... thus the "for limited times" clause. What meaning that clause still has is up in the air given the Supreme Court's affirmance of recent legislation extending the term of copyright protection.

onenote

[donco6]

24. What onenote said.

I was going to post, but onenote got it right.

[onenote]

20. Whether it is a violation of copyright law is untested, not certain

I agree with most everything in your post other than the certainty with which you state that selling a loaded IPod is copyright infringement (even as you acknowledge its untested).

Under the First Sale Doctrine, the lawful owner of a physical object in which a copyrighted work is embodied can sell that object without facing copyright liability. So if I buy a CD, I can sell that CD. If I buy a book, I can sell the book. If I buy a painting, I can sell the painting. The suggestion in the article cited in the OP that its illegal to sell an original cd after ripping the songs is also questionable. The issue isn't the disposition of the original its the status of the copy. If you have the right,as a matter of fair use, to make a back up copy of a cd, or rip songs for the purpose of creating a mix disc for your personal use, does the retention of those songs on your hard drive or on the mix disc lose its fair use status when you dispose of the original? No one has ever held that to be the case and I doubt that they would.

There are many other variables. The fact is that if you buy a copyrighted painting and take a picture of it and then sell the original painting, so long as all you don't try to engage in any commercial exploitation of your picture, but rather keep it for your personal use, I suspect that the copy would be deemed non-infringing.

onenote

[mattclearing]

26. Yes, I know who the RIAA is. My comment was with full knowledge

that they won't police their members.

[sui generis]

29. I love circular arguments like this

"The law clearly states that distributing copyrighted works without authorization is a violation of the law"

That was a good one.

The point I made with my comment should more correctly have been qualified as normative, however the broader implication is that either you rely on the honesty method in "giving away" or you have some means to enforce and catch lawbreakers.

There is a very narrow line between enforcement of RIAA's policies and complete invasion of privacy, and I disagree normatively with the law. I understand the intent but the RIAA is way out of line. First of all, does playing that music on a speaker in someone else's home at a party constitute a copyright infringement? I still retain the copy but have temporally gifted many people with playback of the song.

Shouldn't we also have some technology that prevents other people from being "gifted" with music, even just merely through playback? I know it's a reducto argument, but the RIAA is still prosecuting people who can't fight back because it's more PROFITABLE to do so than to fight larger legal battles against real, wealthy profiteers. Similarly the IRS is discovering this principle - you audit and assess people who can't afford adequate legal representation and you get to collect more money sooner.

I don't believe that in practice the RIAA has a noble bone in its collective body.

[trogdor]

15. Here's another one.

Say you have ripped all your CDs, LPs, 45s, etc. to MP3 format and leave them in a shared folder on your computer for your own convenience. You have a home network. Your kids like to hold LAN parties at your place, their friends find your shared folder and plunder the contents. Yes, they really like Led Zeppelin. One of them even likes Journey. What is your liability?

What if you have a wireless router which you leave it unsecured because you're a tech dumbass and the neighbor kids plunder the aforementioned MP3s from your shared folder? Are you a criminal?

This is getting ridiculous.

[unkachuck]

16. will I....

....go to prison if I sell my old record collection along with my old record-player at the flea market?....be afraid, be very afraid....

[Buns_of_Fire]

18. I agree. It's the hygenic thing to do.

But be careful while you're wiping it or you might hit that little button that erases all the songs! :-)

[DiverDave]

19. Once again they shoot themselves

in the foot.
I bought multiple copies of "gimme back my bullets" over the years, and I have downloaded that, and others from napster, etc.
By paying the greedy bastards MULTIPLE TIMES, I can wipe my ass with them if I wish.
They never seem to go after M$ or any of the other manufacturers of burning software...hmm

[The Straight Story]

21. I wonder...

If I buy a cd of my fav artist and then go and buy a cd with a mix of artists on it and the same song is on my other cd will I have to pay less? Heh..

[Heddi]

23. What if you bought the music from itunes

and didn't rip it off a CD or download it (illegally) from the internet?

We have an ipod shuffle and have DL'ed a couple of songs from iTunes and they've gone directly onto the ipod. I legally purchased that song and didn't illegally DL it.

I suppose their issue is the fact that the Ipod is being "sold" with music and they're taking the leap that the $$ you're making off of the sale of the ipod is also $$ you're making off of "selling" the music that's on it.

That's kind of a stretch, I think. I'm sure most people, if they bought a used Ipod, would immediatelly format and scrub it as soon as they got it--I don't want someone's shitty music---the music I listen to is shitty enough as it is.

the RIAA is really going overboard with this shit. I find it hard to believe there's a billion-dollar-a-year underground industry that is set up off the backs of ipods that were sold with music on them. Shit...just download them off line if you want the music...why take the chance that the ipod you buy on Ebay is going to have anything other than englebert humperdink on it>

[The Straight Story]

31. I think their view is:

You paid for the music but if you give it away with the ipod someone else is getting it for free.

[burythehatchet]

25. the RIAA

can kiss my copyrighted ass.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. Can you say "invasion of privacy?"

Why the fuck should I delete my songs that I CONSENSUALLY give my friend. It's like telling me that I can't sell my old CDs at a garage sale. But then again, with this administration, privacy is an archaic way of life that has no meaning in the 21st Century :crazy: