View Full Version : I am a criminal

4th August 2004, 07:55 PM
An article on Mac Observer (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/08/03.15.shtml) referencing the Sydney Herald Sun claims that in Australia importing music onto your iPod is illegal.
I guess technically that would make me a criminal B)

5th August 2004, 06:39 AM
yes it's true. It is illegal. So is using your video recorder to tape TV shows. Everyone just turns a blind eye to it.

They may have to change that little section of the law if the FTA is passed in its current form. In America they are legally allowed to tape TV etc. But here we aren't, with the FTA, I think I read somewhere there could be a free for all by American lawyers.

5th August 2004, 09:56 AM
That particular legislation is really showing its age.

It should be repealed and replaced with something more appropriate. But as it stands, copyright issues aren't really what's on the plate of Federal Government at the moment.

5th August 2004, 12:34 PM
maybe a reason for itmus not here yet?

7th August 2004, 09:57 PM
I'd like to see someone try and get my iPod off me!!!
Or even off the police!?!??! I noticed the tell tale white cable and ear pieces on a AFP police man sitting in a police car the other day as well!

7th August 2004, 10:13 PM
this is just like the law with tapes 10/15 years ago but no body gives a shit because everyone does it...

7th August 2004, 11:12 PM
Both ARIA and the RIAA posted record profits in the last 12 months. Since the iPod and similar personal audio devices, music sales have gone through the roof. Virtually lossless digital extraction of a relatively scratch proof medium to much smaller, portable devices is what the music buyers have been craving for years. No more scratched LPs, no more stretch tapes, no more bulky, degrading media.

Cries of "illegal music downloading is making us poor" are quite frankly lies.

And yet, with all of these people frothing at the mouth and virtually begging a market to be created around the demand, the RIAA and their cohorts continue to try to control the CD sales market rather than embrace online digital technology.

iTunes posted incredible profits on its first day online in the US. That only proved that people are more than willing to pay for downloadable music if the option was only available to them. And yet we STILL see the RIAA refusing to budge.

We are now seeing muscians bitching that iTunes is "too cheap". They are whinging that people only "buy the popular songs".

Well, here's my suggestions to the coke-snorting spoiled brats of the USA who continue to cry about not earning enough "millions":

1) release a CD with more than a dozen tracks. You can fit a whole hour on a disc (or more). Use it. I'm sick of buying 40 minutes of music for $35. iTunes gives me 99c a song. That makes your CD worth $12 online.

2) Make decent music. Hell, I'd buy even the crappiest B-Sides of some of my favourite bands. Yet this top40 one-hit-wonder crap on the charts today is worth a single song an album at best.

If the RIAA had put less effort into suing pensioners and school kids early on, and instead had invested their money in smart technologies, they'd own the online music business by now. Steve Jobs is getting ever-richer thanks to his extremely simple idea. That idea was that anyone reguardless of who produced or managed them, or how much money they had, could sell music online. The top-heavy fat cats at the RIAA thought it would never work, and now they are running scared.

This whole "online music is illegal" crap is rediculous.

To the RIAA: The 70's called, and they want their business ideas back. Welcome to the 21st century, you ageing fogeys. The 1970's Harvard school of business taught a generation of pinstripe wearing middle managers that downsizing staff and squeezing the little people meant tighter control of a market and greater expansion. The digital age is upon us and the little people now have a DSL modem and a credit card. You were all caught sitting on the loo reading the business journal with your pants squarely placed arount your ankles. All that business that could have been yours is lost, and the best you can do is try some meagre threats to scare school kiddies from downloading some music. Unfortunately for you the same DSL modem that brings them their music allows them to hear the alternative thoughts of folks who don't agree with you. Unlucky.

The geek shall inherit the earth. Steve Jobs and the other sneaker-wearing CEOs of this generation make more money simply by giving the people what they want. Either listen to your market, or die. It's simple economics.


8th August 2004, 02:12 AM
Here, here Elvis. I don&#39;t even think HMV, Snaity and the like have caught on either. They&#39;ve reduced their CD prices probably a whole 10% over the last decade. I&#39;m still happier going to BigW/Kmart/Target to buy them.

When did CD burners hit the stores? How much are they now-a-days? &#036;37.00 for the average burner&#33; Add &#036;22 bucks for a tub of 50 CDs HELLOOOO. A CD burner has paid itself off after burning 1 and 1/2 CDs&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; And yet they still expect us to pay for prices that are close to the third highest in the world (I think that&#39;s right, feel free to correct me anyone) for pre-recorded CDs.

Like you said Elvis, Welcome to the 21st Century&#33; Embrace it or get out of our way&#33; We live in an age where we don&#39;t use casettes anymore. We don&#39;t sit up each night and hit the record button while listening to the radio countdown to get our favourite songs (because no-one ever did that sort of illegal thing). And we certainly aren&#39;t going to pay &#036;25-&#036;30 for each of 20 CDs with one or two songs we want so we can put a CD compilation together of songs that are our favourites for the month. Let alone go out and pay for 10,000 singles at &#036;5-&#036;10 a pop again with 1-2 songs on it we want to fill up our iPods. Then on top of all that we are supposed to pay for software (yes I know there is ALWAYS free alternatives), to download these songs to our computer. And who has the fr&#33;&&in time to sit there and download them all anyways?

I would quite happily pay to be able to download the songs I want. Bands bitch and complain about the rest of the songs on their albums not getting the exposure. HELLO WHY DO THINK PEOPLE BUY SINGLES? BECAUSE THEY&#39;RE PRETTY? These bands don&#39;t bitch and complain about singles do they? No of course not. When we want the one song we buy the single. IF we want the whole album because we really like the band, then we buy the whole bl**dy album.

And with the amount of songs I can fit on an iPod anyway... I would have to lug around 3-4 of those 200 CD wallets just to have that sort of library at my disposal.

George Michael has the idea> I don&#39;t really need all the money that printing out singles and albums for disgruntled fans who have to fork out more money to go down to a store and pay money for a CD that has only one song on it they want ATM generates... so I&#39;ll put my new song on iTUNES. Good on ya George.

NOT THAT THIS GREAT ATTITUDE IS HELPING ANYONE IN AUSTRALIA&#33;&#33; Why? Because of all the corporate, backward, beurocratic b^&#33;&#33;&#036;#*t that our older-generation-who-would-rather-hold-a-martini-than-learn-how-to-use-a-computer recording industry executives generate to redtape a very, VERY legitimate niche in the digital music market. (Sometimes a little over legitimate me thinks, especially with the amount of American rap crap we&#39;ve got on our radio ATM stealing airtime. It would be better used to bring good Aussie talent who are flogging their guts out to make it in the business, trying appeal to a generation of Over-Americanised, hiphop loving, Aussie kids who would rather Idolise Snoop Dogg or whole bunch of spin-off wannabe, one hit wonder rap artists who churn out crap and don&#39;t make sense at the best of times, than Silverchair, Jebediah or Eskimo Joe. But I&#39;m getting off track.) My point is we love all cultures, and they all love us so why not exploit it. We listen to so much different stuff in this country that I think iTunes and the like, would definately make a nice tidy profit coming over here. Our main problem at the moment is that we are a country who likes to go with the flow and if it isn&#39;t broken we don&#39;t change it. I bet if we put out a nation wide boycott on pre-recorded music they&#39;d listen.

8th August 2004, 09:27 AM
I must really be a criminal then. I buy c.d.s, digitize them, and then pan them to my family. The legislation just shows how backward our politicians are, and how backward they think us (the average Aussie) are. This also explains why the government still uses windows....

8th August 2004, 10:16 AM
oh stop whinging about itms. Just go to AllOfMp3 (http://www.allofmp3.com)

8th August 2004, 11:51 AM
I think if you buy anything,you own it. It is your property. Even if some one gives something to you its your property.Anything on this side of the modem is mine so :P
This Digital Age must be like when Humans first began to talk and communicate.
Everything becomes fluid and communicable for everyone(with a computer) and humanity is better for it.

8th August 2004, 12:26 PM
99c i usd, and if itunes comes over here its gonna be like &#036;1.69 or something.

the music industry is a bitch - i am also sick of cds costing &#036;30. i mean, wft? no wonder the music industry is in such a slump. no ones bothering to shell out 30 bucks for a cd. frankly, its prolly the reason i don&#39;t buy cds as often and if i do, i buy it when they are really cheap. of course the internet the cheapest way for me to get music.

all this calls for itunes down under iSay :P

8th August 2004, 02:15 PM
There&#39;s a scene in the movie "Men In Black" where Wil Smith&#39;s character picks up a tiny disc, and asks what it is. Tommy Lee Jones&#39; character tell&#39;s him it&#39;s a new form of data storage that can hold massive amounts of data. Wil says "Oh well, looks like I have to buy the Beatle&#39;s White Album again".

While audiences chuckle, the truth of the matter is that the RIAA and their cohorts would have us believe this is the case. It is not. When you purchase a song, you purchase the rights to listen to that song on one place at one time. If I buy a CD, and rip it to my iPod, assuming that I am the owner of both the CD and the iPod, and I only listen to the contents of the CD on EITHER my CD player or iPod at separate times, then I am within my full rights to do so.

Just because the industry comes up with yet another medium (8-track, cassette tape, LP vinyl, CD, MD, DVD, whatever) doesn&#39;t mean I have to re-purchase all of my music. One license to one listener. You can make a million copies if you like, as long as you are the only person listening to the music you purchased.

My father recently copied his entire collection of Beatles music from vinyl LP to MP3 using his old record player and his computer. He then takes his 30-odd albums worth of music on a single disc with him when he travels, and listens to it in private. This act is not criminal and does not defy any copyright law in existence today. The RIAA would probably tell him he&#39;s doing the wrong thing, and should instead re-purchase the pre-packaged collections brand new on CD. But that is completely uneccesary.

The RIAA are trying to force the paper copyright law of old on new digital technology, and it doesn&#39;t fit. Instead of helpig to change the laws to enhance the way we do things, they instead go around suing pensioners and primary school kids. Real tough.

Interestingly enough, close to 80% of music pitacy in the United States comes from organised crime groups. Yet I don&#39;t see the RIAA raiding ex-mafia houses for bulk bootlegging of albums for illegal sale. Instead, we hear about yet another college under investigation because some students are listening to music&#33; Methinks the RIAA needs to grow a backbone and perhaps target the real threat to their business? Or maybe it&#39;s just easier to sue grandmas instead of take on mob bosses and "sleep with da fishes".


8th August 2004, 02:38 PM
You can make a million copies if you like, as long as you are the only person listening to the music you purchased.

Classic. I just thought of all those times I watched DVD&#39;s on my home cinema with friends over.

Next time I will be more cautious and keep a sharp eye for the cops to bust down my door.

Kicking all my mates out, fineing me for each person other then myself watching the movie then fineing me more because of the amount of cops in the room while the movie is playing.


8th August 2004, 03:49 PM
If you actually read the warning that appears before a movie, it espressly prohibits public viewing of said movie. If you want to take this to the full letter of the law, then yes, technically you are breeching the copyright by showing it to more than the person who paid for it.

Again: this is a simple case fo stupid, ancient laws trying to govern new technology. The legal system still has it&#39;s head stuck in the 1700&#39;s while the rest of the world has moved on exponentially.

8th August 2004, 05:39 PM
I have indeed actually read that note.

Also, some DVD burning software also adds its own warnings also, which run along the similar lines.


8th August 2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by elvis@Aug 8 2004, 02:15 PM
If I buy a CD, and rip it to my iPod, assuming that I am the owner of both the CD and the iPod, and I only listen to the contents of the CD on EITHER my CD player or iPod at separate times, then I am within my full rights to do so.
No that is illegal- that&#39;s the entire point of the article. Straight from the Australian Copyright Council (http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf):

• there is no general right for individuals to copy recorded music, even from a CD you own.
• there is no general right to copy copyright material for personal use (or “fair use” right) under Australian law.
• ownership of a physical item (such as a CD) does not give you the right to make copies (including copying
into a digital or other format).

10th August 2004, 09:14 PM
Again illustrating the point that Australian copyright law obviously has no idea about the 21st century and how the rest of the world has left the 90&#39;s. Hey I&#39;ve got an idea, lets devolve&#33; Lets purposefully make the law more primitive. (yes I&#39;m being sarcastic.... Well Der).

Why don&#39;t they just change the rest of the world to suit Australian Law and ban MP3&#39;s. I mean they were technically first created so people who &#39;create&#39; their own music can store them in smaller form, am I correct? Or did some braniac come up with it so his music collection didn&#39;t take up too much space on his computer? Because if that&#39;s the case, MP3&#39;s should have been ban from the onset as well as OGGs and all those other compressors because in technicality they are encouraging us to put our music collections elsewhere than in the CD rack.

And by the way Elvis, it was Tommy Lee (AKA &#39;K&#39;) who said he&#39;d have to buy the white album again... "Old and busted" vs. "Hot new stuff". :P