RIAA: illegal to Copy Own CD's to Computer
fishmongerfunk
4,154 Posts
these guys are getting desperado:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.htmlDownload Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal UseDespite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings."I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.ad_iconWhether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.
Comments
The industry wouldn't actually sue Apple and Microsoft - two of the largest companies that make home burning possible - would they? Then Matsushita and Sanyo and pretty much every CD-ROM manufacturer had better watch out. But I don't see that as a possibility. The RIAA would rather harrass poor college kids and single mothers without financial recourse than take on a techology industry that commands (what has to be) over a trillion dollars in revenue yearly. That's a damnable sin.
No wonder I haven't bought a single NEW non-indie release for over 8 years and counting. The existence of Amazon, eBay, and used-CD stores are godsends.
What do you mean? Mormons download, too.
If it's says so on the RIAA's web site it must be the law.
Luck makes a good point. When trying to recoup loses the most common tactic is to sue the 'deep pockets'. In this case no one has deeper pockets than microsoft. Microsoft makes file sharing possible in dozens of ways from web sites to software. Also Sony (they sell the music, but they also make the hardware that lets you burn copies) and Cisco and lots of others have deep pockets. College students don't.
This is proof that the RIAA is not interested in stopping file sharing or recouping loses. Why their goal is to drive away consumers I don't know.
The train that the RIAA is trying to stop has long ago left the station. It's like fining your remaining few customers for being too behind the times or too stupid to just steal things outright. Why should you have to buy shit 3-4 times? Next they will want to charge us for every play of a digital track, require you to purchase a CD for each time you play it, one for every player in your home, one for the car. Has any law been more misused and maligned by an industry than copyright law?
Of course, when you can make $220,000 from single mothers like Jammie Thomas (who has fundamentally become a life-long indentured servant to the music industry on the strength of 24 shared songs), you don't really need to sue Microsoft and Apple. I think that the RIAA is pursuing the logical equivalent of the "Reefer Madness" or "Shock and Awe" doctrines (id est, "scare 'em where they live"). But there are simply too many folks with too much information for the RIAA to win this war.
To paraphrase Lincoln: you can't fool educated billions of people all of the time.
instructional DIY bonnet audiobooks?
Easy target, less likely to present a formidable defense and have the resources to hire a team of lawyers.
These are some straight up predatory tactics.
no kidding. Wiill they never get it?
I'm assuming that their position IS that copying CDs is illegal (which it technically is) and they would be bitching about that if file-sharing weren't an exponentially larger problem for them.
Anyway, they are just getting more and more bonkers with each passing day.
Their position on copying CDs being illegal is very debatable and not as you suggest "technically" obvious. For one the RIAA's position not the position of the government. They are an industry group. Critics of the RIAA generally feel that fair use covers instances such as copying a CD to an iPod to listen to in a different location/medium. For instance when you buy a copy of an Adobe product you can use it on up to 2 computers simultaneously. I'm guessing the RIAA sees CDs as the front-end to this whole copyright violating phenomenon online.
So Sony would sue itself?
Seriously: the RIAA will never realistically sue a major tech manufacturer. They'd never have a leg to stand on in a prolonged suit.
Adding to what I said before: what's so confusing is that the random and unprecedented attacks on their own consumers seem to be random for the purpose of shocking folks into thinking "Lord Almighty! I don't know who they'll hit next! It could very well be ME! Maybe I should stop using my computer to listen to music, stop buying mp3s online, and stop buying used CDs altogether!"
Imagine the board meeting where the one suit explains to the others that THIS monkey business will be their grand plan for reversing the industry trends.
Actually, I'm sure all the monkeys were in agreement.
Most common CD ripping programs (iTunes, WinAMP) go out to the internet to retrieve album information when you rip the CD. They probably obtain the individual's IP address via one of these transactions.
Or, when the man's home was raided, the authorities discovered that he actually had copies of the CDs.
In today's Times: The Sovereign State of Oregon fights back.
No, of course not. But I don't believe they'd be above suing a company whose express interest was copying music if that was proven to be illegal. The last decade has been RIAA vs. software (Napster, P2P), so it's not a big jump from that to hardware. They don't have that kind of clout now, but what I'm saying is in the future I wouldn't be surprised. It's taken a decade for major labels to warm up to iTunes, and even that is a tenuous relationship, as shown by EMI bailing out. The RIAA doesn't act logically. Look at their lawsuits. Suing MP3.com for streaming, fans for downloading, legitimate consumers for listening to music on different media. It's still chaos out there and they have scattershot tactics based on monolithic scare tactics and industry thuggery.
I think they would and more or less have. The RIAA fought the sales of blank tapes and killed DAT in the 80s. Both markets where Sony was a competitor. I'm not exactly sure when Sony bought MCA but think there is overlap.
Great story. Way for my state to step up. The down side is the assumption by the writer that the students are guilty.
Then there is this:
The record industry got a surprise when it subpoenaed the University of Oregon in September, asking it to identify 17 students who had made available songs from Journey, the Cars, Dire Straits, Sting and Madonna on a file-sharing network.
Journey? Cars? Sting? maybe it is faculty and administration doing the downloading.
Find another to way to get rich.
More importantly, How shitty is our legal system to appease these pieces of shit?
- spidey
If those are the acts the RIAA is searching for, I'm guessing that my raer LP burns are safe.