While I support the rights of artists and their property, I cannot say that I love the RIAA. Especially when they complain about things like ripping a CD to your computer so you can put the music on your iPod. If I bought the CD, then why should I be forced to buy the song a second time if I want to listen to it on my iPod, or a third time if I want it as a ringtone on my phone, or a fourth time if I want to listen to it via a streaming media server in my house?
It's like buying a set of rims for your car, only to have the car company tell you that you will be sued if you ever put those rims on a different car. It's only possible to use the rims on one car at once, so does it really matter if you decide that you like them better on your other car or not?
If I buy a CD, and copy the music onto my iPod, I'm never going to be using both at the same time - I'll either be using one or the other. So there will only be one copy of the song at most ever playing. Would this not constitute "fair use" under Copyright law? So why should I get penalized for making backup disks of my CDs or ripping the music to my computer to archive it?
Or here is my favorite one. According to WIRED news, the
RIAA wanted to hack people's computers to delete mp3 files that it found. If the RIAA ever hacked my computer and deleted my files, how could they prove the original source of the files and whether or not they were illegal? What if I wanted to listen to some tunes while I work, so I purchased a few mp3s and legally downloaded them, only to have my legal mp3 files deleted by the RIAA solely because of their file extension?
If they did do this to me, they would have illegally infiltrated my computer network, snooped around my private files, and then destroyed my property. Last I checked, hacking was illegal and destruction of private property was fair grounds for a lawsuit.
There is a right way to protect the rights and intellectual property of people. The RIAA is not one of them.