Creative Commons License« One Singapore Minute of the Day (24 August 2005) | Main | Don't play play leh »
Thursday, August 25, 2005
All Singaporeans who own MP3 players and iPods are Criminals
Update: IPOS replies to Chris (I had to add the "to" or else Tym the Teacher, whom I love to bits, will scolding me for my grammer, hehe) and Scott Snow wrote a post on this too.
I am not sure if many of you realise this, but if you own an iPod or an MP3 player in Singapore, and you ripped music off your OWN CDs, you are actually breaking the law in Singapore.
After the papers reported about the 3 guys who got arrested for illegal filesharing under the new law, there was this FAQ that was quoted off the IPOS site (Intellectual Property Office of Singapore).
Q. How do I know whether the songs in my computer or MP3 player are legal?A. If you didn't buy it from a legal site like Soundbuzz, it is probably illegal. Plus, when you buy a CD, the rights only apply to the CD; this means you cannot rip songs out and make them into MP3s for your player.
Generally, it's advisable to check the terms and conditions of use before you make a copy of the songs. -- SOURCE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF SINGAPORE"
I was not the only one having this conclusion when I saw the newspaper article. Chris wrote a post on this, (found via Tomorrow) and Unionpost also has a post on this.
Anthony Lim points out, in his comment on the Tomorrow post, that:
"Actually, IPOS is right on the money here - it is illegal to rip songs from your CD and place them in your MP3 player. It's illegal because the fair use defence in Singapore is limited to very narrow circumstances (reporting news, private study etc)."
So technically, does that mean a policeman can pull you off the streets when they see you listening to your iPod, and arrest you for breaking the Singapore copyright law?
Learned opinions on this matter are welcome.
Thursday, August 25, 2005 at 11:47 AM in Musings | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2139/3059786
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All Singaporeans who own MP3 players and iPods are Criminals:
» Get Taufik's MP3 from TaufikBatisah.net
Not sure how this will exactly affect us, but get this - ripping MP3s from Blessings and share it with your friends is clearly wrong. So is sharing them online. [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2005 2:22:23 PM
» All Criminals We Are! from Exonesis.Com
I got rather fired up after reading Mr Brown’s entry on a Straits Times article dated 19 August, 2005, Music-swopping chatrooms close.
It was simply an article about the arrest of 3 youths who had obtained music illegally.
Old news if you ask ... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2005 8:29:32 PM
» thursday links from asiapundit
China will soon be receiving some unusual visitors:I will be going to China during September to lecture at the Dalian World UFO conference. Apart from covering my research, my new book Hair of the Alien and the Australian UFO [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 26, 2005 12:00:49 AM
» UK ISP offers legal file-sharing! Meanwhile, Sing from hazylium
Though wow, ripping songs is illegal? Weird. Thats one law I bet is never going to get enforced. C'mon, if people can't convert their CDs to MP3s, Creative Zen MP3 players will plummet! Sure die, leh. [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 26, 2005 9:45:40 PM
» IP Laws need a dash of reality from VANTAN.ORG: The Daily Weblog
It seems that you aren't supposed to rip legally-purchased CDs into digital format. When I first saw Chris's original post containing replies from IPOS, I nearly posted my own 'thesis' on the issues involved. Then I saw the long list... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2005 10:37:03 AM
» MP3's and Singapore Law from SingaSingapore
In any case, while IPOS is not wrong, it's not necessarily right, either. This is simply the conservative approach... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 16, 2005 12:00:57 AM
» Copyright and the Christian from The Book of Shadow
What's a Christian to do faced with such a copyright situation? [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 11:08:32 PM
» [Preliminary 2005] Countdown 1 DAY!!! from New Domain [V6]
Well, Mdm Ilyana told us not to study after 6 pm and so here I am obeying her instructions More Mr Brown today. Geez, Ive become a fan of his commentaries and watch out for it in Today. And here today, I just found out Mr B... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 27, 2006 6:40:10 PM
» IP Laws need a dash of reality from VANTAN.ORG: The Daily Weblog
It seems that you aren't supposed to rip legally-purchased CDs into digital format. When I first saw Chris's original post containing replies from IPOS, I nearly posted my own 'thesis' on the issues involved. Then I saw the long list... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 8, 2007 4:56:43 PM
Comments
basically from what I've learnt in class is that intellectual copyrights that we own are only in that form of expression. eg harry potter the movie and harry potter the book enjoy different and separate copyrights. for CDs, both are music but just on different devices. Also, mp3 and other digital formats are not readily on sale for most of the music in the world yet. would converting mp3 to a smaller wma be infringing the copyright of the song? even if I do delete the mp3?
perhaps it will come to this one day: if I loan a CD to a friend to listen, it is not infringing. if I rip the music off my own CD, it is not infringing. if I rip the music off and then pass the CD to a friend, it is infringing because I no longer enjoy the rights to the CD and music in it and hence I do not enjoy rights to the mp3 that I've ripped?
darn now I'm confused.
Posted by: rationalneurotic | Aug 25, 2005 11:58:04 AM
So, what? We all have to hand in our iPods and MP3 players over to the nearest NPCs?
Anyway, I've already known I'm breaking the law. Makes me feel like a rebel. A pathetic one, but still a rebel.
Posted by: MiSoto | Aug 25, 2005 12:07:23 PM
Two thoughts:
1) Does that makes Creative Technology a company that's abetting criminal activities in selling MP3 players and bundling them with the mp3 ripping software?
2) MP3 players and Ipods no longer just play typical mp3s. We can still have a player dedicated for podcasts... which by the way.. *ahem*, when's your next one??
Posted by: Jonathan Poon | Aug 25, 2005 12:26:43 PM
make this your next Today article...
Posted by: loupgarou | Aug 25, 2005 12:32:34 PM
In singapore, many things are actually against the law. It's still illegal for guys to have long hair. The law was never changed. It's just a matter of whether the govt decides to take action against you. If they want, there's a million things that is easily illegal.
Posted by: Anon Scaredycat | Aug 25, 2005 12:38:43 PM
the concept of "fair use" will probably not hit our shores anytime.
Posted by: jim | Aug 25, 2005 1:30:37 PM
It makes me wonder why such players have this (ripping) function to begin with if its breaking the law. Could be a chicken and egg issue.
Posted by: ROTP | Aug 25, 2005 1:33:15 PM
Fair Use has always been in our Copyright Act. It's just been restricted to such a ridiculous extent that it's next to negligible.
Can anyone spell FTA?
Just because something is the law doesn't mean that the law is justified or fair.
Posted by: Kenneth | Aug 25, 2005 2:06:53 PM
I think the government's approach to this law is similar in its approach to the oral sex law: yes, it's illegal, but as long as you do it privately and don't get caught doing it, then the government will turn a blind eye to it.
Posted by: Yuhui | Aug 25, 2005 2:15:32 PM
You can indulge oral sex in PRIVATE, but the whole point of iPods and any other MP3 players is their portability, so that you can use them when you are out in PUBLIC.
Posted by: Finn | Aug 25, 2005 2:23:03 PM
Rip music for personal use its fine, don't share.
Posted by: sim.inbox | Aug 25, 2005 2:23:43 PM
Frankly speaking, if the record company so scare of people ripping music and infringing on copyrights, they are always welcome to record songs in the vinyl records or cassette tape. That way, it will greatly reduce piracy. They are the mastermind in the first place. They record songs in digital formats and they are just like the devil himself. Setting the trap and just waiting to see if you fall to the dark side.
Posted by: ethan | Aug 25, 2005 2:48:07 PM
I think that whoever who came up with the policy obviously is someone who is a miser and pc illiterate (read: won't spend a single cent on stuff like mp3 player, ipod etc).
This law is not only limited to the locals. What will the police do if they were to see a bunch of tourists walking down Orchard Road with ipods in hand? Arrest them? Or is the government going to ban the use of portable devices and players like real player, jetaudio etc?
Who in the right mind would want to get a cd from the music stores in future since by ripping a song out of a cd you bought to your pc, you are now considered a criminal?
Will somebody from the IPOS office please educate Apple and Creative first since we are now criminals cos we use portable devices with ripped music?
How would the police react when their own family members use ipod etc? Arrest them or turn a blind eye to it?
Posted by: graceang79 | Aug 25, 2005 2:48:53 PM
Its not a matter of it being illegal.
Why do you think Singapore took so long to clamp down on illegal software?
Sure...now its rather tough to find a place that sells it...but in the past, without the FTA pressuring them, the authorities didn't mind having illegal software available for its people.
How else to quickly educate your own people?
Wait until they understand the value of the software before purchasing it.
Anyway, the idiots were hosting and ignored warnings.
they needed examples made anyway.
Posted by: tigerkiller | Aug 25, 2005 2:57:45 PM
I find it strange when people blame Apple or Creative or even MP3 players. Folks, these companies that sell these players and bundled ripping software are just selling tools. It is you that are breaking the law by loading pirated songs into them. Don't blame Guinsoo for making sharp knifes that can stab people. :D
And yes, the law is there so that the authorities can enforce if they choose to. So unless you distribute publicly and have caught the attention of RIAS( yes they pressure our 'mata to liak le') or running for the next GE, don't sweat it la.
Relax brudders...
Posted by: KayuWangi | Aug 25, 2005 3:26:56 PM
You bet sales in Soundbuzz is gonna hit the roof after that statement.
Posted by: Kenny Sia | Aug 25, 2005 3:38:31 PM
Who cares. I don't own a MP3 anyway. Police should just fine as many peoples so that our government has more revenue.
Posted by: Dave Lee | Aug 25, 2005 3:39:23 PM
let's all go to jail together!!!!!!! One People One Nation One Jail
Posted by: thomas | Aug 25, 2005 3:54:20 PM
the law say it is illegal to rip CD into mp3...doesn't matter you distribute it or not.
Posted by: anon | Aug 25, 2005 4:11:58 PM
Aiya...these stupid laws are necessary for GDP and income distribution.
Like the record companies, when gahmen is bored or got no business, gahmen needs to "cari makan". Singapore is a "fine" country, no? Don't worry about jail lah...no profit there.
Posted by: anon | Aug 25, 2005 4:36:55 PM
Actually, if you own an MP3 which records, then you can start singing and recording your own song. In this way, you won't have infringed any rights...
Wait. Do you need a licence for public entertainment and reproduction now?
Er....
Posted by: Angela Jean | Aug 25, 2005 4:51:24 PM
"I find it strange when people blame Apple or Creative or even MP3 players."
Of cos, cannot blame these pple lar, if Creative kena sue and close down, then not much home-grown brand left liao.
Anyway, if you blame them, no one produce MP3 players, where got pple for them to catch and fine.
Posted by: Malcolm | Aug 25, 2005 4:52:31 PM
my opinion:
intellectual property laws everywhere in the world need to be revised accordingly. did anyone notice that books, cds, n such can't be lent to friends? it's ridiculous.
policemen thankfully cant pull us off the road n haul us in jail because they need warrants to do that.
Posted by: mervkwok | Aug 25, 2005 4:55:30 PM
Just got a great idea!!!
Maybe Singapore can be the first country to implement "COE" for MP3 players to limit the number of MP3 players that is sold to lower the chance of copyrights infringement.
Also, we can have law that MP3 players can only be bought by responsible adults above the age of 21 (ie check IC) to ensure that all MP3 players are used by responsible adults that are mature enuff not to put illegal mp3s on their mp3 players.
To further ensure that Singaporeans abind and respect the FTA, we can have policemen doing random checks on your mp3 players to ensure that your mp3s are from legal sources, so as to ensure that Singaporeans could reach a new height of consciousness when it comes to legal rights issue.
We can also have yearly "Know you copyrights" campaign added to our Singapore calendar to educate Singaporeans the importance of copyrights.
Posted by: Malcolm | Aug 25, 2005 5:19:27 PM
Iam A criminal?? Bah knew that a long tme ago.. i would actually bet that most of us has or had done one criminal thing one time or another so what's another to the list..
Posted by: MHS | Aug 25, 2005 5:26:58 PM
A little thought - when legislation is passed in Singapore, do the people here have a right to demand that it be revised?
I don't see it as a mere Ipod, Creative or any MP3 player only issue. What about our mobile phones? The newer phones nowadays come with MP3 player functions - and it does seem that every Singaporean on the street has at least one.
And I believe that people share ringtones pretty often in Singapore - wouldn't this law kinda lead to a slippery slope scenario whereby virtually every person on the Singapore street can be caught for breaking the law??
Posted by: Chean | Aug 25, 2005 5:56:11 PM
Sure! Arrest Me then,
At least I've my green apple in jail.
They can strip me of my songs but they surely can't take away my apple!!
Posted by: MarriedMan | Aug 25, 2005 6:08:16 PM
Sure! Arrest Me then,
At least I've my green apple in jail.
They can strip me of my songs but they surely can't take away my apple!!
Posted by: MarriedMan | Aug 25, 2005 6:13:14 PM
GR! So I guess all the mp3s manufacturers and related businesses should start packing up and washing their butts.. because they are the masterminds! =X
Posted by: Ignorant Author | Aug 25, 2005 6:53:58 PM
Uhh...Ignorant you are indeed. Didn't you even read Malcolm's comments a few spaces up?
I stumbled across this article too, read it and brushed it aside.
It's still very much a vague issue now.
All I would really say is the that law has been behind times for a long time now.
Technology kept advancing but the laws didn't change to adapt to it. It's the "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." mentality again.
If even ripping music from the CDs we BUY are against the rule, how else are we suppose to obtain our MP3s? I mean, surely not P2P networks again?
Am I a criminal by the above regulations? Very much so. It's ludicrous! Here I am BUYING an album from the local shops. Then I decided I want to put the songs there in my MP3, and no I don't rip them because that's against the laws even though I've already paid my share of $20. NO, no!! I shall go to a licensed online music downloading site and PAY for the song again!
Whoot! This makes me brainless, totally.
Posted by: Hikoto | Aug 25, 2005 7:08:23 PM
Sorry I would just like to add that a new age of talent - bands and singers alike are rising to fame BECAUSE of online music sharing.
If anyone has cared to read this month's issue of Lime(a teen magazine, but nonetheless, bear with me), this was how The Bravery was given the shot at stardom. The below quote comes right from one of the band members, Michael Zakarin, in an interview with LIME.
"Music piracy does not affect bands that sell less than a few million records. We would be the most hypocritical band if we are to be against downloading. Before we had any label interest, we didn't know how the f*** to promote ourselves. We created a website with three raw MP3s and linked it to this huge site, MySpace.Com. Radio stations from the UK and US heard about these un-mixed tracks and started downloading them to play on air. Before our album was even finished, we were signed!"
Posted by: Hikoto | Aug 25, 2005 7:22:26 PM
So if I rip from CD is breaking law, so can I record it off radio, convert to mp3 and put it in my mp3 player, so is this breaking the law. If so, they might as well banned the use of mp3 player, casette recorders, VCR, DVD recorders etc. All these are allow you to rip copyright stuff from TV, radio, etc.
Posted by: Triax | Aug 25, 2005 7:45:09 PM
Well, it's about time to start doing my rightful duty as a citizen of Singapore. Popagandhi, miyagi and brown, prepare to have your homes searched by police tomorrow. The rest, your turn will come.
I beseech all of you to do your part and report EVERY SINGLE copyright infringer to the proper authorities. We must not be known as a nation of copyright infringers. Biotech hub, green hub, business hub whatever hub we can be, copyright infirngement hub not very nice name for Singapore lah, right?
Come to think about it, should inaction on the part of the authorities to take the necessary actions against lawbreakers be considered illegal too? The heavy fines paid by copyright infringers should be sufficient for police to step up patrols to catch even more copyright infringers, right? So no excuse to not do their rightful duty as law enforcers...
I mean, what would people think if we report a crime and the police choose to take no action? Hmm?
----------
C'mon lah, have more faith in our policemen can? I know they very anal about speed limits and stuff, but I believe they do have brains to think about matters like these and would not grab you off the street just for flashing your piece of white gold in front of them.
Posted by: kureshii | Aug 25, 2005 8:40:41 PM
Making a mountain out of a molehill.
Posted by: JD | Aug 25, 2005 8:59:58 PM
in Australia, there is no fair use (I think), and it's the same as in Singapore- you can't even copy cassettes.
Technically, and I mean technically, you can be arrested if they're not bought in mp3 form.
But of course, no one's gonna do that.
Posted by: silvermyst | Aug 25, 2005 9:34:42 PM
I have several opinions which I would like to voice out in this little text box.
Firstly, when you purchase the song, I believe that you are actually purchasing the RIGHT to enjoy the song, for yourself. That is, I believe that ripping it to your computer and listening it on your MP3 cannot be legal as you are basically converting what you are allowed to use in the first place (Songs on CDs) into another format (MP3). By filesharing, we are talking about SHARING FILES with OTHER people, not between yourselfs. I mean, you're not sharing no shit with other people.
Secondly, we must realise that record companies are becoming like, dictators of some sort. They impose what they think is right, onto people. They want you to download songs legally by buying it from websites, but are they making such means widespread enough and readily availble? It's not like you can walk into a store and buy songs in digital formats. Also, there are people who are all nervous when it comes to revealing their credit card info. With the rise of phishing and other hacking methods, and the advocation of online music purchase, will online crime rates rise? What are the social and economic implications? Record companies, please reflect and don't be selfish in making things difficult for the people.
In conclusion, I agree that record companies need to maintain profit margins by clamping down on piracy. But with all the actions by them, are they making things easier for us? Or do they want to see higher numbers? Unless they can guarantee us that our account informations will not get leaked, that we can obtain all types of songs easily, File Sharing laws are merely for show.
Posted by: Jeremy Toh | Aug 25, 2005 10:04:35 PM
........ need to be so serious ah... tsk tsk tsk
Posted by: Missy Claris | Aug 25, 2005 10:07:55 PM
I actually asked the exact question about whether it was legal to rip songs off your friend's CD and put it in2 ur own pc/mp3player when some of these people came to my school for a talk couple of months ago.
The spokesman said it was illegal but mentioned that they were more concerned about internet piracy, as in pple downloading songs from the net & also those pirated cds sold at pasar malams.
Not that they will not go after you.. just tat it's not on their priority. Tats what he told us... But well you never know.. so just be careful!
Posted by: anon | Aug 25, 2005 10:24:53 PM
i bet some police officers break this law too.
Posted by: mr tan | Aug 25, 2005 10:25:04 PM
I have read the age-old debate regarding fair use in the USA, thus, everytime, there is a new format (CD, cassette, mp3 players, etc), the record companies would attempt to prevent the proliferation of the equipment. A halt to the march of technology. I recall that an extra levy was once imposed on blank cassettes in the USA. I wonder if that still hold true. Does anyone know?
In Singapore's case, wouldn't selling cassettes and CD-Rs be abetting crime too?
Posted by: Chuang Shyue Chou | Aug 25, 2005 10:35:36 PM
I remember reading in the ST that it's NOT illegal to download songs from the internet; but it IS illegal to leave it on the computer to let others download it. In order words, download it for your own use is okay, but distributing it to others is not. Can anyone shed some light?
Posted by: Chris | Aug 25, 2005 11:22:22 PM
Chris, I remember reading that too, in Computer Times if I am not wrong. Unfortunately I no longer have that particular issue. It said something to the effect that it's okay to download songs as long as you don't distribute it. Trouble is most P2P software also shares out your downloads it said.
Before this MP3 boom, it's supposed to be illegal to make copies of your CDs, LPs, etc even for your car hifi. Very silly if you ask me.
Now that MP3s and other digital formats become popular, the Recording Ass. of America and affiliates try to clamp it down again. And the IP/Copyright laws stupidly try to follow. Might as well stop making CD-Rs, CD-Ripping software, MD/cassette/DVD recorders and anything remotely close to having the ability to record.
Speaking of which, anyone remember those special "Music Only" CD-Rs of which a royalty is supposed to have been "pre-paid" (thus costing more)? I believe they are close to non-existent now.
Record companies and such should really wake up and smell the coffee. The world has changed. Consumer behaviour has changed. Media consumption paradigms have changed. Only these companies have not.
And by the way, how are the law enforcers going to tell the difference between your own ripped version of a song from a CD you purchased vs the same song bought from an online store like Soundbuzz, Play! or iTunes anyway?
Posted by: geek | Aug 26, 2005 12:16:19 AM
Hi mrbrown,
I've read a few of your articles before, and have found you to be an intelligent, well-informed writer. I've actually constructed a response to your article, as well as some questions raised in the comments section, but it's a little too long to post here. You can find it at: http://scottsnow.blogspot.com/2005/08/thoughts-on-singapores-anti-piracy.html
I do hope you'll take a look and let me know if it's a "learned" enough opinion for you.
In response to silvermyst's comment above, Australia (where I'm currently studying) does in fact have a fair use policy with regards to digital media. I can't for the life of me remember how many copies you're allowed to hold in possession, but I think it's three: the original, one for portability, and another for back up.
Cheers! :)
~Scott
Posted by: Scott | Aug 26, 2005 1:02:49 AM
That's exactly what I said before, you can download/rip. But for personal use only. Don't share the files via p2p. Those who were caught download and share. I'm sure the police had linked up with the other bodies to police this. These 3 fellas are the guinea pigs of this new IP legislation.
Posted by: sim.inbox | Aug 26, 2005 1:14:38 AM
i guess.
it's just WRITTEN there to show they don't advocate it.
Like prostitution.
The police close one eye in geylang right??
But still in the law its written that it's illegal.
So yeah,i agree with someone up there. It's basically whether they want to enforce it or not.
Posted by: cakie | Aug 26, 2005 2:08:42 AM
Does it seem very likely that anyone'll get arrested here for ripping their CDs to MP3 and transferring them to their ipod? I sure hope not. From the perspective of a user, it's far more convenient and economical for me to have my entire music collection accessible from one place (my pc) and use my ipod to listen to parts of that collection when I'm on the go. I suppose I could just buy music in digital format online, as Scott Snow writes in his blog, but I already have a huge collection of CDs and Soundbuzz (the only Singapore music music store I know of- are there any others??) doesn't really have any music I want.
BTW are there any real statistics on how much CD sales here are falling? Are they falling? What's the damage being wrought by the proliferation of MP3s anyway?
Posted by: Ahmed | Aug 26, 2005 2:34:08 AM
all they want from goody good citzens are our money.
thats all.
i dont think filesharing will hurt them in anyway.
they still earn big bucks!
Posted by: Jess | Aug 26, 2005 9:40:43 AM
dear cakie, prostitution is not illegal leh. got license one wor!
the music industry has only themselves to blame. who in the world carries a discman these days. CD will prolly be relegated to the realms of audiophilic pleasure. So please wake up and start distributing your music online before blaming listeners for ripping it.
Posted by: dr bl og | Aug 26, 2005 10:00:52 AM
Umm...but they DO distribute music online.
Posted by: Scott | Aug 26, 2005 11:44:05 AM
prostitution in geylang is legal only applies to the licenced houses of ill repute. the street walkers that hang out on the streets are not legal. clear enough?
Posted by: MHS | Aug 26, 2005 11:48:27 AM
I dun get this at all.....If I buy an original music CD and rip the songs into mp3 format for MY personal mp3 player for MY personal listening pleasure...I am commiting an offence even after paying the fat loaded record companies the 20 bucks for the music CD? So where is the f**king logic then?? Dun be a BIG BULLY my friend lest we boycott you all one day and see where your fat profits comes from..
So I am guilty of an offence by ripping my music into mp3??? Arrest me lah.....KNNBCCB........
Posted by: matsuda | Aug 26, 2005 11:53:58 AM
Someone check if our million dollar Ministers have the Mp3 players themselves!!
Posted by: clueless | Aug 26, 2005 12:06:57 PM
See matsuda, you're one of the "good" guys, that's why you don't get it. But see, there are these people in this world called "not-so-good" guys. Who might not JUST use the mp3s for THEIR personal mp3 player and THEIR personal listening pleasure.
That's why RIAs demand/pressure governments to protect their rights and their investments. Because not everyone's a good guy like you.
There's the f**cking logic right there.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 26, 2005 12:12:16 PM
Dave.....I dun give no shit about what others do being less than good guys according to your post. My f**king logic stills hold on why I should be guilty of a illegal act by ripping MY music CD into a mp3 format for MY mp3 player after all it's my My personal f**king consumption..
if RIAs have rights to protect their rights THEN what about my personal f**king rights?? I paid 20 bucks for that music CD too...
Like i say...arrest me lah KNNBCCB......
Posted by: matsuda | Aug 26, 2005 12:23:48 PM
hmm it's Grammar, not grammer :)
Posted by: Nobody | Aug 26, 2005 12:38:54 PM
Nobody: haha, I know lah. I was just kidding and teasing Tym.
Posted by: mb | Aug 26, 2005 12:56:24 PM
Why can't we all post in a civilised manner? :/
matsuda, if you care to take a look at my post at http://scottsnow.blogspot.com/2005/08/thoughts-on-singapores-anti-piracy.html (even though it's long and boring), you will find that I've already addressed the misconception that you've paid for the music. In your own words, you've paid for the music CD, not for the right to rip or otherwise reproduce the sound recordings on the disc.
Good call by Nobody. ;)
Posted by: Scott | Aug 26, 2005 12:56:32 PM
The thing is, like someone said waay up above, why not question the regulation itself? When it obviously sounds screwed.
What I mean is, when I buy a CD, I don't care what rights I bought to it. That's not my aim. I don't go around saying, "OMG I have the rights to this....it's sooo amazing!" *rolls eyes*
But one thing is clear, I BOUGHT THE SONG. I don't care what format I bought it in, because at the end of the day, be it I play it on the stereo, PC, car radio, PSP or iPod, it SOUNDS THE SAME.
Unless they tell me when I convert to MP3, the sound quality suddenly improves greatly for obscure reasons unknown, then I'd give that regulation some breathing space.
Posted by: Hikoto | Aug 26, 2005 2:30:18 PM
From the trackbacks:
>> » Get Taufik's MP3 from TaufikBatisah.net
>> Not sure how this will exactly affect us, but get this - ripping MP3s
>> from Blessings and share it with your friends is clearly wrong.
>> So is sharing them online. [Read More]
This is bullshit. Do not confuse people with MP3 and DRM'ed WMAs from SoundBuzz. Granted everyone thinks that a sound file is an MP3 now. MP3 format is more or less open, and not encumbered. You cannot burn songs to more than 3 CDs, and cannot play on another computer, etc... MP3 does not prevent that. I always use the same CD-RW to burn songs to, then listen to it in the car. I do not want to keep many CDs dangling around. This of course will mean that I'll hit SoundBuzz limits easily.
What you buy from SoundBuzz will not play on your iPod as well. Also, because SoundBuzz provides lossy compression of WMAs at low bit rates so the sound quality is reasonable, not really as perfect as the CD, but most people won't hear the difference. So, why must I pay $1.99, for a lower quality file, that has restrictions built in. I don't get it at all.
I buy my music online from http://www.emusic.com, where you download in unrestricted high quality VBR MP3 format, for $0.40 each. The artists may not be from the top 5 mainstream labels, but really people, there is more to it than Britney Spears, or Coldplay.
Posted by: wari | Aug 26, 2005 4:52:13 PM
Good regulation calls for taking into account the principle of proportionality. Thus, if you are a good guy, and you have paid $20 for a CD and want to listen to that CD not only when you are at home but also when you are out and about on your portable music player, then it is reasonable to assume that you should not have to pay for the same product twice eventhough it is used in different formats. Regulators have the responsibility to ensure that the measures they are proposing meet their regulatory objective in a reasonable fashion without unreasonably infringing rights to carry out commercial activity (selling mp3 players for example) and consumer rights (reasonable cost for a consumer good). So, as long as you are a good guy and do not employ a "sharing is caring" attitude to your mp3's, then no worries. Even if you get caught, you probably won't get convicted even if you can't afford Davinder.
Posted by: Tweety | Aug 26, 2005 5:11:51 PM
Nowadayz every PC comes with either CD-burner or DVD-burner ROM, we can do many 'wonderful' copies with it right? so catch us lah!?????
like that Changi Prison full house liao.
CheeBye those so call copyright owner, sell your cheebye product as low as the pirates, so problem solve liao lah ... study so much still don't fucking understand!? KNNBCCB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: bengz | Aug 26, 2005 6:34:59 PM
heck. if i were a musician, i would be more than happy to find my song on your computer. at least i would have supporters. who even cares about illegal downloads and such.
the only think that shudders is how the police found out that the 3 youths were sharing music.. and how ipos scans the computers of singapore to catch people.
like that almost all the blogs in singapore owned by secondary school people also must shutdown lor.. most of them put mp3s on their sites..
hope the gahmen addresses this. sian.
Posted by: derick | Aug 26, 2005 7:37:48 PM
thinking about it hor, if they scan our computers, they are also infringing our privacy. sue gahmen! lol.
all the gahmen people study so much still like that..
i think they don't even know what they are talking about. they seow liao. study too much lah...
Posted by: derick | Aug 26, 2005 7:40:31 PM
Yes in fact I was wondering how the Police managed to get hold of who does what naturally...
My brother posed a similar question to me the other day, while I was going about my furious rampage on the matter.
Apparently he had a talk at school about this. He can't remember what organisation the speaker was from though. One of students had inquired how they actually find out who's d/l music and the guy's reply?
"I can't tell you. I'd have to kill you if I do."
Of course the back part is added in a jokingly manner I believe. But nonetheless, this proves something, it's a method by which when known to the public, hackers or programmers alike can do something to counteract it. ;)
Posted by: Hikoto | Aug 26, 2005 7:49:40 PM
It was not always this way. Even in the United States.
Listen to Stanford Law School's Prof Lawrence Lessig: http://legacy.randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html
Posted by: Kenneth | Aug 26, 2005 11:02:00 PM
I don't think it's as clear as IPOS suggests. In fact, IPOS does not know. Lets break this down:
While Athony is right in saying that the defences available are limited, there is a particular (might be new...) section which will help in this case, namely, S109. [see bottom of the post for entire text of s109 of the Copyright Act as newly amended on 15th august 2005]
If and when any such case comes before a court, the factors in subsection 3 will be what the court shall have to look at to determine the law, and while I cannot legitimately suggest that the factors are all or even mostly in favour of a right to rip, it is wrong to say that they definitively state that ripping is illegal. Look for yourself, and see what you think.
So, the position IPOS appears to have taken is simply a conservative one. Our courts have never had any case where this is an issue, and IPOS is powerless to dictate what the court shall find. I suggest that with this s109, the law in singapore has become far more similar to that in the us.
Lets also not forget the effect of bad press, and the idea that justice should be done.
---
109. —(1) Subject to this section, a fair dealing with an audio-visual item for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 110 or 111 shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item.
(2) The purposes for which a dealing with an audio-visual item may constitute a fair dealing under subsection (1) shall include research and study.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the matters to which regard shall be had, in determining whether a dealing with an audio-visual item, being a dealing by way of copying the whole or a part of the audio-visual item, constitutes a fair dealing with the audio-visual item for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 110 or 111 shall include —
(a) the purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(b) the nature of the audio-visual item;
(c) the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole audio-visual item;
(d) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the audio-visual item; and
(e) the possibility of obtaining the audio-visual item within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
Posted by: Edan | Aug 26, 2005 11:40:37 PM
to: Hikoto
You said: "Apparently he had a talk at school about this. He can't remember what organisation the speaker was from though. One of students had inquired how they actually find out who's d/l music and the guy's reply?
"I can't tell you. I'd have to kill you if I do."
I can assure you that if you tell me (post here) which case you're talking about, I can tell you the technical mechanism which was used to derive the information which lead to the arrest in that case. It's just very technical information, which is probably why the speaker did not want to say.
For example, in the most recent arrests, they were using IRC, and most likely their IP addresses were simply recorded, and the police (or whoever) decided to ask singtel/starhub for the contact details for that IP address. There are methods to mask your identity on IRC (e.g. BNC) but they are not conducive to the sort file sharing the three were doing.
There are things you can do to avoid detection though; for example, certain mechanisms for obtaining files are far more "secure" than others.
Posted by: Edan | Aug 26, 2005 11:45:36 PM
I just read the IPOS reply. I would have commented in Chris's blog, but since you have to be a livejournal user (and I'm -such- a dinosaur) I'm going to reply here instead and pretend he's going to read it:
The response by IPOS is accurate. What else could you possibly have hoped to hear from them? If I were responding to you I would have cited s109, but then again the comments by Jayakumar seem to cover the factors in that section.
Indeed, probably the biggest problem was that they allowed the "CD RIPPING IS ILLEGAL %!#!##" to be printed in the straits times. As they stated in the letter, IPOS "IPOS cannot make a determination whether CD ripping
for personal consumption will amount to a criminal offence " and therefore they have probably erred in allowing that statement to be published in the straits times. If i were IPOS, I would try to retract it. The proper answer to the question is simply:
Q. How do I know whether the songs in my computer or MP3 player are legal?
A. If you didn't buy it from a legal site like Soundbuzz, it is probably illegal.
The question of whether ripping a cd is illegal or not should not be brought up, bnecause IPOS does not know.
Posted by: Edan | Aug 27, 2005 12:13:17 AM
Seriously. This is way too amusing for me. When you rip a CD that you owned and put it into your MP3, you have already infringed the Copyright Act as long as you click Rip Music.
So if we buy music online, we can also burn into discs what, but this won't infringe copyright. Oh what the hell. This is way damn ridiculous.
It's not that I don't support the RIAS for clamping down on Pirated copies, but you need to understand that techology has gone forward. Gone are the days, where you lug walkman, discman with tons of cassettes, CDs. Now there is something called a MP3 which was invented for convenience of bringing it about. I don't believe that there will be people so stupid in buying music online when identity theft is so rampant.
And simple economics tells you that, if you want to beat the pirated copies, then just simply set your price low. Duh!
Posted by: chweekueh | Aug 27, 2005 12:37:22 AM
Okay I get it....Now I am even more resolute to stop buying original CDs and just get pirated music CD for ripping into mp3 format for my mp3 player since I am already guilty in the 1st instance of ripping my original music CD's...............................it dun get any worse then this...I am migrating onto the darkside now....welcome aboard genetlemen....
The DarkSide beckons.....HeHeHeHeHe.....
Posted by: matsuda | Aug 27, 2005 10:38:00 AM
downloading music from a site is not as good as displaying the album in your cabinet.
it looks so much cooler with piles of music cds stacked up on your desk than a long row of music tracks on your playlist.
let's boycott. let's say the police acadamy has about 500,000 people, or even less policemen in singapore. if 3 million people riot at the same time, there's nothing the gahmen can do. they can't shoot us cause we are not armed.
Posted by: derick | Aug 27, 2005 3:30:10 PM
oh yeah.. Edan, can you tell me how they scan the computers for stuff, for example some time ago, if you download a song from some site with .mp3 as your extension, ISPs will take note and refer you to the police rite?
how do they find out what i download? they can't scan through my packets what? or can they?
erm, another question.
can they see what files i have on my com?
Posted by: derick | Aug 27, 2005 3:32:41 PM
derik:
If you're suspected, they can apply to seize your computer. Apart from that, it might be possible for the authorities to install a trojan horse or equivalent using known bugs in various operating systems. However, this is very unlikely.
If you download from a random internet site, it is not likely to be noticed. It is technically possibly to packet scan for specific types of files, but as far as I am aware this is not carried out on a regular basis.
You're most at risk using known p2p applications such as bittorrent, gnutella, etc. For example, two big bittorrent sites were recently taken down. log files from those sites may be used as evidence.
Posted by: Edan | Aug 27, 2005 7:02:45 PM
Personally, I feel like hurling profanities at the Singapore government anytime, anyday, anywhere. Why in the world did they come up with this law, when music can be ripped for personal usage in mostly all countries. Singapore is going too excessively on the anti-piracy laws. I mean, yes, its wrong to be a pirate! But if you buy originals and just transfer it on your mp3... what in the world is wrong with that? You still make the purchase and you still pay the record companies to hear their songs. If this carries on, I don't think I'll be hearing any songs anytime soon. It's insane!
Posted by: g-10 | Aug 27, 2005 7:19:36 PM
Illegal to rip my Michael Bublé album!? What are CD ripping softwares for then? Accessory to crime, so arrest the developers as well.
In fact, just ban everything except government controlled radio and TV. Suggest to the public to hum their favorite songs instead.
I downloaded music once, from www.mp3.com. Die ah, surely kena cane.
http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&productID=310
Posted by: kkyz13 | Aug 28, 2005 1:04:46 PM
well, if you really want to be particular about these things, think of libraries. are we being fair to the authors who put in much more, very much more effort than singers in a studio. we are talking about months or even years of work, research etc and finally a book. and there you go loaning it to the public in the library.
Posted by: karebu | Aug 28, 2005 2:41:26 PM
Finn you said "You can indulge oral sex in PRIVATE" I don't think that that is the case. I tot that oral sex was fine just as long as it is a part of foreplay. Besides the notion of oral sex is okay in PRIVATE leads to Oral sex in public - no no! Missionary - we close one eye.. haha..
Anyway on a more serious note, I would like to encourage Singaporeans to think about how to solve this ridiculous issue. I am guessing that if people gathered to boycott this, then I am pretty sure that they would relax the laws... not likely that even these giants would be able to sustain long without support!!
Posted by: gatewarper | Aug 30, 2005 4:59:50 PM
Okay.. a few more things.. KayuWangi you cannot say that you cannot blame the makers of Guinsoo knives for making knives to kill people... (BTW - if you are using a Guinsoo knife, you are most likely to be infringing on some IP law because as far as I know, the Ginsu knife technology is still under patent. :) Just jesting.
The main difference here that I see for the analogy not to hold is that knives are not made primarily for the use of killing people. That is one. A secondary reason would be that they are already licensed to make such instruments by law. It is obviously not illegal for an organisation to make guns in singapore. I am sure that we all know who is responsible for the SAR21. Yet it is illegal to try to make your own home-made gun. So if you have to shoot anyone, it has to be the legislation then. If the garv-man are so anal about protecting the industry giants, let them make it illegal to own MP3 players then. Made in Singapore for export only etc. :D
So the thing is that MP3 players main function - listening to MP3. No need to prosecute the manufacturers.
Let's go into what Scott has mentioned. Despite him saying that his blog is lengthy and boring, I accomodated him and read it. I don't deny that by law it is true that you are only paying for the music to be enjoyed in that format. And it is true that for the renewal of the music economy, it is necessary to put all these restrictions. Come on guys.. I am sure that some of your parents must be super pissed off that they are not able to enjoy their old classics from their 78rpms on modern machinery but I guess that they have accepted the fact and moved on. We have more or less gone through a transition that is similar.. from cassettes to CDs.. and now to mp3s.. While all of this is true, it does not make it right. Who protects the rights of the consumer then? Suppose the music industry comes up with a new format every 4-5 years.. are we still going to have to start our new collection all over again? Or have a gramaphone, a cassette player, a CD player and an Mp3 player as well as a player for the new format just so that we are able to listen to the same music we bought a few years back? I suppose that we are just going to shrug it off and just do as the industry dictates... because we cannot be bothered to resist, too afraid to resist, too reluctant to be proactive. So the question is not a matter of legality but a question of infringement - the infringement of our rights.
I continued to read on to the part that you mentioned about modification of Xboxes being perfectly fine. You said that modification of the machinery could be done such that it is of no effect in promotion of piracy i.e. modifying it to become a home entertainment system. installing Linux.. etc but simply improving it. You also went on to mention that ripping a CD is like ripping out your XBOX to study its contents and creating a copy for yourself. Not sure about reverse engineering laws here so I shall not bother to delve into how reverse engineering and building your own XBox for your own use should not be illegal. The thing that I want to say however is that when I rip a CD, I am not making a copy of it. as a matter of fact, I am simply taking a subset of the information. Copyright laws allow music scores to be used non commercially just as long as it is less than 10% of the entire composition. The way I see it... a compression of factor 10 puts me well in bounds of the law...(I am tethering on this actually..) In any case, the actual argument is, I am not making a copy, but rather an impaired audio version that allows portability which makes my experience better.. not unlike modifying an XBOX for whatever reasons... unless you are modifying it such that it outputs monochrome colours only... It also makes me think that you are only truly concerned about the issues that you might have an interest in (an XBOX owner perhaps?) and that you are totally sided... 2cents and no more...
Thus I shall once again beseech ya all... BOYCOTT!! Do your part.. so not say that we are a civilised society when we are simply cowering under the shield of inactivity!
Posted by: gatewarper | Aug 30, 2005 6:12:59 PM
It's dumb when you can't rip songs from the CDs you purchased.. What rubbish.. Then why did they give us devices like CD-burners in laptops and desktops in the first place.. Why not just ban this "burning" thing then there'll be no problem, then ban iPod and Apple just like they have banned chewing gums..
Posted by: Mee | Aug 31, 2005 12:38:28 AM
Aiyoh, I turn my head away for one week.
Just to clarify - there are two ways of looking at "breaking the law". One involves criminal sanctions (jail time, fine). One involves private prosecution (damages).
An example is punching someone. You can get arrested. You can also be liable to the person for hospital bills.
On to the next proposition - and I really should have been clearer on the outset - you can infringe copyright but not be hauled up by policeman.
Criminal liability for copyright is established by something more than mere copying - it requires an element of trading for profit.
The catch is that poession of 5 infringing different infringing copies establishes a presumption of trade. The english translation from legalese is that you own 5 infringing copies, -you- have to show that you're not a trader, as opposed to the prosecution having to show you -are- a trader.
As you can see, it's not easy for a policeman to haul you off the streets. However, it does make it possible for an iPod to be a technical breach of these criminal provisions, which is why I think it is particularly boneheaded.
That deals with the issue of copyright as a CRIME.
Copyright infringment as a matter of COMPENSATION, however, is a whole different story. That does NOT require an element of trade. You're liable to the copyright owners for infringing copies, loss of profits etc.
The reality is that there's usually a volume threshhold before recording companies get upset enough to whack you goot-goot. Court cases are expensive, and unless you cause losses sufficient to catch their attention, you are usually safe.
-whew-
Need more explanantion?
Posted by: Anthony Lim | Aug 31, 2005 2:52:49 AM
The Police are focusing on e Raid again... WTF man. What's the whole point of Havin a MP3 or iPOD if u r not able to dl songs from e net or rip from CDS? The singapore police is Eat full nothing do (JIA BAR BO XI ZOR). ALL the songs I love to listen are JAPNESE SONGS, Some are not avaliable in Singpore, buy from net my parents KBKB, dl aso cannot. then waht u wan me do? Buy the MP3 or iPOD put there for fun ar, stare at it fro hrs ah? Siao one lar they all.
The stupid record company alwaes say that they sell one million copies of the CDS by advertising it on TV. Then they still dare tell us no money is earn? They lie only lar... If they no $$$ the recording companies long gone ler... bunch of stupid liars... This cannot do that cannot do... might as well let the disc man come back... and by the way hor... no one carries a discman anymore leh...
MP3/ iPODS are portable, as you can store all diff languag song... Image u going out with a discman and lugging a bag of CDS wif u... Everyone will statrt laughing man... Singapore every year earn so much $$$... even donation drive aso earn $$$ n they corput n steal e money. U think everyone e world is pure one arz? some of e police aso corupt one lehs... dun tell me u go out street, police catch u for owning a MP3 and u can onli hav a discman (who has one of these nowadays?). If cant do this cant do tad... then might as well tell us that every single thing we do is aganist e LAW lar hor...
Posted by: MK33
Posted by: Kennedy33 | Oct 17, 2006 8:27:49 PM
