RIAA: copying CD's you own to your PC is illegal

[Hugabear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

<snip>
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.
<snip>

As far as I'm concerned, the music industry can go fuck itself. They have completely lost touch with their customers, and these latest tactics prove that their customers mean nothing whatsoever to them.

[Political Heretic]

1. RIAA can go fuck a duck.

They are so far off their goddamn rockers it is insane.

PROUD TO DEFY THEM EVERY CHANCE I CAN!!

[Hugabear]

3. What should I do with all my blank Sony DVD-R and CD-R discs?

After all, Sony says that copying your own music is now illegal. :sarcasm:

[screembloodymurder]

28. My computer made me do it !

I just put the CD in and i-tunes copied it w/o asking me. Honest your honor. You may arrest my computer, but I am innocent.

[Hugabear]

37. Funny - my Windows Media Player does the same thing

I put in a CD, and WMP automatically starts burning it onto my PC. Do I have a case against Bill Gates?

[Toots]

76. Punish the Monkey but let the Organ Grinder go.

:shrug:

[xultar]

94. REREAD the article. The guy was still DOWNLOADING. HE WASN'T BURNING.

[bryant69]

2. I am in favor of buying music rather than stealing it

That said, this is like the worst possible decision the RIAA can make. They must have gone drunk with power.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Hugabear]

6. I stopped downloading music several years ago - but I still copy my own music

I've copied quite a few of my CD's onto an external hard drive, so that I can have a computer backup. Yet now the industry wants to say that I'm a criminal for doing that.

[bryant69]

18. Well yeah - I-Pods seem super popular - what use are they if you can't rip your CDs?n/t

[kysrsoze]

71. It's all a bunch of B.S. Copying CD's for your own personal use is classified as "Fair Use"

It's no different than making a cassette from the LP's you owned in the 70's and 80's. RIAA has been on a crusade for the last decade to change fair use laws. I agree. They can go fuck themselves, and artists like Radiohead, NIN, Saul Williams, Underworld and numerous others are providing them lots of assistance in doing so. Eventually, the RIAA and the major labels (which really are one and the same), will fall into obscurity. People aren't going to continue paying exhorbitant prices for electronic versions (with no production/distribution cost) of the absolute shit they try and ram down everyone's throats.

[xultar]

93. REREAD the article. The guy was still DOWNLOADING.

[malaise]

27. So am I

but I have copied many of my CDs onto my computer.

[Snarkturian Clone]

4. Never buy music again!

Copy all of your CD's and mp3's and give them away to all your friends- tell them to do the same.

[rucky]

11. Just avoid major labels.

Here's a link to hear artists who self-distribute:

www.cdbaby.com

[Snarkturian Clone]

13. thanks NT

[Hugabear]

14. Thanks for that link!

Their "Sounds like" feature looks like a great way to find new music that I'll like.

[rucky]

5. Good luck enforcing that one!

:rofl:

[katmondoo]

7. What about Ipods

I am not really familiar with them only know my grandaughter received one for Christmas and as I understand it the music had to be downloaded from a computer. I bought Christmas music and put it on my computer. I don't have a CD player. I agree KISS my ASS.

[Junkdrawer]

10. "Technically Illegal, but we'll look the other way if we feel like it."..

See post #9

[hobbit709]

8. Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on.

[Junkdrawer]

9. That's been their position for a while...

...

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.

It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.


·The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

...


http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html#5

From what I can put together, they caught this guy with file sharing software, he says that he doesn't share music, so they're going after him for ripping CDs. This has backfire written all over it...

[hobbit709]

22. I have file sharing software

I don't use it for sharing music-I have 32Gb of mp3 files, all of it legally mine. Some of my files
were ripped from my LEGALLY purchased CD's, some were digitized from my LEGALLY purchased cassettes and vinyl-especially obscure out of print albums that were never reissued on CD, and some of my music is stuff I recorded live from musicians I know(who asked me to record and I have THEIR permission to keep a copy of the music) . I use the P2P for sharing documents and images I created. So am I a criminal just because I have LEGAL software?

[Hugabear]

24. Not at all - there are legitimate uses for P2P software

Of course, the music industry simply thinks that everyone is out to steal their crappy music.

[Wisperingvoice]

75. What about cassette recorders?

Of course, the music industries, THEMSELVES, simply think that everyone is out to steal their music.er money maybe??? IT'S NOT THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH! The RECORDING companies THEMSELVES, are so greedy, charging high prices and therefore, using the bands and musicians to steal our money, If the bands and musicians, THEMSELVES,distributed more independently,they wouldn't be sharing their profits with the industries selling THEM..I would buy more instead of having someone find their songs for me to listen to ;) Is recording off of a radio station onto a cassette a crime to? Been doing that since I was a teenager!! Cassettes are "Old School":D "Get Down Boogie Oogie Oogie." and I still use them too.:9

[ThatsMyBarack]

84. Welcome to DU, Wisperingvoice!

:hi:

[Wisperingvoice]

103. Welcome to DU, Wisperingvoice!

TY

[Junkdrawer]

26. I'd be watching this lawsuit if I were you...

They find folks who have file sharing software and then demand a settlement. When they refuse because they say they don't share music files, the RIAA now wants to enforce the "CD ripping is illegal" concept.

[hobbit709]

29. My music files are not in the folder

that I give P2P access to. I set it up for only one folder on a different drive than my main one. I have enough security measures in place to alert me if anyone is even trying to see other files. I'm running six computers at my house and each is set up for a different purpose and I don't network them.

[Junkdrawer]

64. That's what Howell said....(Post #63 below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2560680&mesg_id=2561227

[hobbit709]

66. Obviously they let others see the files

even if they weren't sharing them. I don't let my nonsharing files even be seen.

[Occulus]

82. Their position seems to be, if you have filesharing software, period,

and music anywhere on the same network, that music is "potentially shared". Their reasoning seems to be that, because computer hard drives and networks are so inteconnected and available to each other, there's always a possibility of sharing if sharing software is present.

I have an idea: let's declare the entire internet and all its constantly-evolving contents the default public domain.

[Prophet 451]

33. fair use laws?

Granted, the RIAA has always maintained that it's illegal but their legal case on this one is shakier than Sweeny Todd's razor. Essentially, the RIAA's position is and always has been "we own your soul when you listen" (caircature but they really are turning into the archetypal corporate vampire) but neither your nation nor mine have ever formalised the RIAA's fantasies into law, the "fair use" laws generally allow personal copying and the evidence is against them (and shows that copying music, and sharing it for that matter, doesn't hurt their sales in the slightest).

[Junkdrawer]

35. They're playing a dangerous game....

What they WANT to do is use the "ripping is illegal" stuff to scare more and more file sharing software users into quick settlements.

What the DON'T want to do is have a judge rule on the fair use argument. Either way the judge would rule would be a loss to the RIAA.

[Prophet 451]

51. I don't see how they can realistically win either

Of course, since the intent is intimidation, winning may not matter to them but the licenses granted to music rarely make express restrictions on the format of listening to the music (beyond the usual "private enjoyment" clause) and the licensing agreements for software (which are similar) have had case law, in this country anyway, specifically allow the making of a back-up copy for personal use so I honestly don't see how they think they can win here.

[Junkdrawer]

54. Have a judge rule on the "ripping is illegal" is a Lose-Lose for RIAA...

If they win, then the MP3 industry and just about every music consumer will be gunning for them.

If they lose, then the conversion issue is lost and their intimidation tactic is gone.

[Hugabear]

38. Putting out shitty product hurts their sales more than sharing files

If the music industry is concerned about their sales, maybe they should start paying attention to what they're putting out. You can't keep expecting people to eat the same shit year after year.

[Prophet 451]

48. Quite

The evidence shows fairly clearly that people are prepared to pay a reasonable price for their music. What they aren't prepared to do is pay profiteering prices for crap product.

The evidence also shows that file sharing isn't costing them a penny, they're still making millions in profit. I don't have a problem with paying the artist for their work (which is why I'll buy from the artist via MySpace or similar if possible).

[kenfrequed]

58. Amen!

The music industry has been putting out crap for quite some time. The last time these bastards talked about losses in sales they used a period declining album sales streching back to a time period long before filesharing software came into common usage.

[EstimatedProphet]

12. That's unenforceable

There is no way the RIAA can go door to door for 150 million people and find out who has music on their computer.

[Hugabear]

16. They don't have to

If they can gain access to your computer and see what you have stored on your hard drive, then they can go after you for that. In particular, if they see that you have hundreds or thousands of albums on your computer, they instinctively assume that those are meant for distribution.

The mistake a lot of people make is making their files open for people to see, and not protecting themselves. Particularly if you're using one of those old P2P systems, where the program combs through your PC looking for files to make available. Even if you're not actively downloading anything, your files are still there for anyone else to see or download.

[EstimatedProphet]

60. Which is why I always shut down Limewire and my torrent software when I'm though

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. the morans running RIAA are shooting their own horse

while they are in a race against a ferrari.

either they got some very bad legal advice, or they are so desperate that they can't see straight.

[Prophet 451]

62. They're not going to try enforcing it

Even if they did have teh capacity to check everyone's harddrive (which they don't, unless you buy the PROMIS theory), their legal case on this is beyond dubious. If it ever came to court, I honestly don't see how they could possibly win the case and even if they did, the ramifications would make it a loss for them.

This is an intimidation tactic, plain and simple.

[EstimatedProphet]

67. It sure is

[cboy4]

15. So you have to buy 2 cd's. One for your car and another

to load on your computer?

Sure.

[LynzM]

19. No, I think technically, you just can't have it on your computer.

You don't need an extra copy, it's the copying itself that's illegal? Least that's how I understood it. But if that's true, that's back-asswards, for sure.

[Junkdrawer]

20. See post #9. They want you to buy higher priced "Audio CD-Rs" n/t

[KharmaTrain]

17. More RIAA Intimidation

They don't want to go to court...they want to scare the shit out of teenagers and their parents...sending one of those nasty letters with the caveat that the RIAA would be willing to "drop charges" with a settlement. The gambit here is they get enough people rushing to settle which means quick, easy cash and it sets a precedence if they do decide to litigate.

I can't see this holding up based on the fair use rulings of the past that allowed people to copy music onto cassettes and TV shows on your VCR. If you've bought the disc, you can use it in whichever manner you choose as long as you're not selling it. The RIAA is hoping to scare people who keep their music on their puters (especially those with file sharing programs) and dry up the songs available out there.

In dealing with these people for many, many years, the RIAA doesn't give a shit about the consumer. They had a monopoly on the distribution of music and they're trying to get it back. They assume you'll buy...and if they can put the fear of god in you, so much the better.

[hobbit709]

25. And does the RIAA give these "stolen" royalties to the artists involved?

No, they keep it for themselves. They are ripping off the artists too but they're getting away with it.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

In my radio daze, every year I had to prepare reports for RIAA, ASCAP and BMI about the music we played. We'd send in a week's worth of playlists and through some magical equation we'd get a bill. One year the fees jump up drastically and the owner tried to look into it. We got a major runaround...as they could never explain how they determined our rate other than an arbitrary exam of the lists we submitted (which were similar to the ones the year before) and the station's market size. There was not only no accountability, there was no transparency.

Talk to many artists and you'll hear their own royalty stories...but, just like in radio, they have little redress...and you don't want to piss these people off or the checks may stop showing up in your mailbox. The system is so complicated, it's surely designed to rip artists off...and maximize revenues for the record companies and music publishers.

[NashVegas]

41. You'll Love This

I don't know if you're aware of it, but the Music First Coalition is now pressing congress for legislation to force terrestrial radio stations to pay performance royalties now, in addition to everything they have been.

Their logic: internet radio stations must pay the royalty (CARP), so terrestrial should, too. They claim radio is hurting them.

Now, here's the kicker. 1/2 of the members listed on their website are people that successful radio stations won't even play in the first place! Lyle Lovett went to Capital Hill and testified in favor of the legislation in front of congress. There's not a radio station I can think of that ever got rich by playing Lyle's music, as great as it is. Talk about biting the hand that feeds!

Meanwhile, the GM of a cluster of stations in the Carolinas has just announced that they will not play the music of any of the Music First Coalition, out of sympathy for the artists. He doesn't want to harm them by playing their stuff, the press release said.

[KharmaTrain]

43. I've Been Following This...

As an internet station operator, i've been paying the CRAP...err CARP fees and the ongoing legislative efforts from several groups to secure internet radio's future from the record companies and the media conglomerates. The RAIN website...http://www.kurthanson.com/ has a lot of stuff on what you're refering to.

So this GM doesn't want to "harm" the artists? Can I guess he's at a Cheap Channel station...just like their boycott of the latest Springsteen album.

[NashVegas]

50. I Don't Think It's Clear Channel

It's some religious cluster, actually. Can't imagine their are that many of their artists are on the list, but a few.

I'm not CC, I'm on an indie station. And what Lyle Lovett and the rest of them are doing pisses me off to no end. All these years I've gone on the air and helped many of these signers sell records when I talk them up, talk their albums up. Like 95% of the people in radio, I haven't exactly gotten rich doing this. There've been some who's stuff is the most boring shit imaginable but you don't say that on the air. I'd be happy to boycott them all in favor of artists who understand what we do for them.

CARP fees should never have been levied. Only way I'd operate an internet station is if I had waivers from artists whose stuff I was promoting.

[Sam_Smith]

21. That is bullshit

The RIAA is out of control. I guess damn near every person on the planet is now a criminal.

[Buzz Clik]

30. I have a modest CD collection of about 100. In honor of the RIAA's action, ...

I am going to rip every one of them onto my computer during the holiday.

I wonder what is next for the RIAA -- attempting to make it illegal to play music for friends? After all, if I purchased a CD, it was for my personal use. Playing it aloud for the consumption of others is the same thing as sharing music, and god damn it, that's illegal!

[Prophet 451]

32. The RIAA can kiss my tungas

This has now become farce, they're living up to Frontalot's missive that "the RIAA / exist to sue you each time you hit "play"".

[onenote]

34. the article is not terribly accurate

RIAA's position has for some time been that copying for personal use is technically an infringement, but may be "fair use" depending on the circumstances. As a result, even when it has gone after someone for unlawfully distributing copies of recorded music via a peer-to-peer service, it has only asserted a claim for the unlawful distribution, not for making infringing copies. And that is true for the case described in the article. RIAA is not suing based on the fact that the defendant ripped his cds to his hard drive. Rather, RIAA is suing based on the fact that the defendant stored those ripped music files in a shared file and made them available for distribution via KAZAA.

I've had my share of fights with RIAA over the years (having once done work for one of the early on-line music companies), but to the extent that the article suggests that RIAA is now going after people simply for ripping their cds (with no evidence of further distribution to the public at large through a peer to peer service), the article is not accurate.

[Junkdrawer]

36. The RIAA is playing a dangerous game....

What they WANT to do is use the "ripping is illegal" stuff to scare more and more file sharing software users into quick settlements.

What the DON'T want to do is have a judge rule on the fair use argument. Either way the judge would rule would be a loss to the RIAA.

[Hugabear]

40. They're relying on technically ignorant juries and judges

They have an army of lawyers who can practically drown you in a sea of legalese, throwing around technical jargon until you're completely lost and bewildered. They know that most people don't have the money to afford a good lawyer who can counter with their own experts. This way, even the few who are brave enough to fight the RIAA lawsuits in court don't stand much of a chance, like the poor woman in Minnesota (I think) who was ordered to pay a shitload in fees.

[HeraldSquare212]

72. And taking advantage of unsophisiticated consumers

I've always suspected they have used illegal means to get the info that they use to file suit. So many of the suits I've heard about are against 12 year olds or grandmothers, I have a feeling they target people who don't understand computers and wouldn't recognize a trojan or some other type of invasive snooping.

If everyone would litigate these suits, they would stop - the music industry just doesn't have the money anymore to fund actual litigation on all these cases. They used the tactic of bullying those who couldn't afford to defend themselves, and it's time the defendants now did the same.

[KamaAina]

112. If that's true, the info would be inadmissible in court

I've always suspected they have used illegal means to get the info that they use to file suit.... I have a feeling they target people who don't understand computers and wouldn't recognize a trojan or some other type of invasive snooping.

but then, that's the whole point, isn't it? Target people who don't have the means to defend themselves in court. Kind of like SLAPP suits, in a way -- and note that some states have anti-SLAPP laws; one wonders just how broadly they're written...

[Buzz Clik]

39. The article quotes members of the industry ...

... and their statements are 100% consistent with the title of this thread.

It's clear that they are pushing the legal boundaries and pushing into court.

[onenote]

44. The title of the WaPo Article is not accurate

That was my point. That article is entitled: "Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use"

However, in fact, the lawsuit discussed in the article does not go after the defendant for "personal use" -- it goes after the defendant for making copies available for distribution to the public via a peer-to-peer service, something that RIAA has long taken the position is illegal. And the quoted language from a Sony official from an earlier case was given as her "personal view" not her legal opinion or the opinion of the record industry.

In fact, the record company has long hedged its bets on this issue. They concede that individuals have a legal right to make copies from cds that they own if those copies are made onto Audio CD-Rs, mini-discs and DAT. While they contend that there is no "legal right" to copy a cd onto your computer's hard drive or onto a portable music player, they concede that such copying will raise no concerns if the copies are made for your personal use (i.e., they implicitly concede its fair use).

[ret5hd]

49. So "fair use" is not a "legal right" (according to your logic)?

[onenote]

52. not what I said

I stated that the WaPo article is not entirely accurate and pointed out in particular that the article's headline is inaccuate because, in fact, in the lawsuit discussed, RIAA is not going after personal use, its going after distribution to the public via a peer-to-peer service.

I agree that RIAA is plaing word games when it claims that there is no "legal right" to rip cds to your computer or mp3 player, but implicitly acknowleges that doing so for personal use is fair use. However, back to the point of my thread: RIAA is not "going after personal use", at least not yet.

[Junkdrawer]

63. More here:

In the case Atlantic vs. Howell, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell have been accused of file-sharing over the KaZaA network. Their defense has been that although there are plenty of MP3 files on their computer, the files were not shared but were ripped from purchased CDs for personal use only.

Possibly to increase their chances of a win, a supplemental brief filed by the RIAA contends that ripping music from legally purchased CD’s is illegal. This would eliminate any escape the Howells have. If successful, it would also mean that anyone who ever ripped a CD for their iPod or other MP3 player — would now be a criminal.

Right on page 15 of the brief linked above it says:

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use.

So, according to the brief, ripped CDs = unauthorized copies.

Of course, the Howells could lose their case while the argument about CD ripping is dismissed, but time will tell. The defendants have until January 11th to respond.

...




http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5198

[onenote]

74. the legality of ripping is not in issue in the case

Even if the defendant had been authorized by the record companies to rip the CDs, the defendant would still be liable if RIAA is correct that someone who makes available ripped CDs for distribution via a peer to peer is engaging in an infringing act whether or not anyone actually takes advantage of their availability.

RIAA is playing word games. The ripping was "unauthorized" in the sense that the copyright owner did not authorize it. To the extent that it was only for personal use, it would not be illegal (even though it was unauthorized) because it would be fair use. But if the ripped songs were not merely used for personal use but were made available for distribution via p2p, then the copies, in RIAA's view, would be both unauthorized and illegal. However, even with that, RIAA has not asserted a claim that the ripping was illegal -- they have not claimed infringement of their right to copy, only of the right to distribute copies.

Also, while the Howells claim that their files weren't shared, the evidence on that is in question. Apparently, after the lawsuit was filed, the Howells had their computer "wiped" to remove the Kazaa program and the shared file folders.

Here is RIAA's pleading
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

[cascadiance]

42. I guess since 2001, I've been working in a business that fostered crime...

Helping sell software that helped you play music on your computer and move music back and forth to your computer from your CD's...

Ah jeez, how soon before they haul me off for retroactive criminal acts.

Of course, now I've been switched to working on engineering in one of the biggest email services in the world too. I'm guessing that I'll be held accountabole retroactively for criminal acts for that too later that this administration is forcing all of us to do now!

[CatWoman]

45. K&R

this is such bullshit!!

[rocktivity]

46. However, making copies of CDs you've bought online is NOT illegal?

:crazy:
rocknation

[originalpckelly]

47. FU RIAASSHOLES!

[ToeBot]

53. So which politicians, do you suppose, are giving the RIAA legal cover?

You may not want to find out!

[Hugabear]

57. Judging by your siggie, I think I have an idea

Are they some of the same ones going after the videogame industry?

[gollygee]

55. That's the main reason I bought an ipod in the first place

I have tons and tons of CDs and I don't like having to deal with all of them. They take up too much space. Now they're in the basement, and all of my music is on my ipod. Plus some new stuff I've bought off itunes. I don't see how I've done anything illegal. That's ridiculous. I just like having all of my music in one tiny little place.

[qb]

56. The RIAA has done a fabulous job...

of helping people feel good about violating the law. I get a warm fuzzy feeling from every CD I rip :)

If they had any brains they would put all of their effort into creating the best damn music search engine and download manager in the world and make the music so cheap that people would CHOOSE to use it rather than go to the trouble of doing it illegally.

[Franc_Lee]

59. I thought file sharing was the issue?

[Hugabear]

65. Are you familiar with Prince's war against "fair use"?

It made the news about a month ago. Some woman made a video recording of her toddler dancing around, and Prince's "Lets Go Crazy" was playing in the background. It wasn't even the full song, mind you, but just a small section of the song. Prince's legal team found out about it, and demanded that YouTube take down the video.

I have always been under the impression that you were allowed to use up to 30 seconds of copyrighted music without having to pay royalties. Radio stations use this for their rejoins all the time. To me, this just smacked of more music industry intimidation.

[Occulus]

81. I have come to very firmly know, not believe, that the RIAA would

sue you for humming one of their member's tunes in public if they thought they could get away with it.

Your story reminds me of the European analog to the RIAA; In Scotland, they're suing an auto repair shop because a stereo owned by an employee was playing a CD that employee legally purchased and DID NOT rip within hearing of other customers.

One article on this.

The same story, but a different writeup, via slashdot.

If they could transmit a signal at the end of a song that erased your memory of that song, I bet they'd do that as well.

It is things like this that make me pine for a copyright law that only lasts seven years (let's face it: if you can't make cash from your works after seven years, they're probably worthless as a product to begin with). Forget the "life of the author" bullshit; that's an infinite copyright for a whole lot of people.

It's time we took seriously the statements regarding "limited time" for copyrights. I'm for a strict, hard, and SHORT limit, after which the works automatically enter the public domain without the possibility of a copyright extension. Further, I'm also for everything available on the internet to be found to be de facto public domain; i.e., if it's online, it's free and public by definition.

That's already the practical case anyway.

Can you tell I'm deeply hostile toward our current system of copyright?

[Hugabear]

97. That is just...fucktarded

This is like a dark comedy playing itself out in real life.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. It's worse than that - that's about *radios* being publicly audible

Link to the BBC story:

Lord Emslie said: "The key point to note, it was said, was that the findings on each occasion were the same with music audibly 'blaring' from employee's radios in such circumstances that the defenders' local and central management could not have failed to be aware of what was going on."

The judge said: "The allegations are of a widespread and consistent picture emerging over many years whereby routine copyright infringement in the workplace was, or inferentially must have been, known to and 'authorised' or 'permitted' by local and central management."

He said that if that was established after evidence it was "at least possible" that liability for copyright infringement would be brought home against Kwik-Fit.

But Lord Emslie said he should not be taken as accepting that the PRS would necessarily succeed in their claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm

That's so goddam stupid, I'm stunned. The radio station will already have paid a fee for broadcasting music; it's available, for free, to anyone with a radio. But the PRS want to charge for people hearing it via a shared radio, rather than on their own radios. The PRS is claiming that the radio is a significant part of the experience of having your tyres changed at Kwikfit, and that as a (large) company, they should be paying money for it - £60 per year, for having a single radio on in a shop. :banghead:

[Zodiak]

61. A lot of us were warning that this is an inevitable outcome.

Way back during the Napster wars.

The industry first destroyed the independent labels through mergers, then they destroyed the upper management who were all music lovers and replaced them with MBAs who wouldn't know Slayer from Winger, then they stripped all of the artists of any real money through bad contracts, then they closed the doors to new artists by refusing to scout out new talent, and then they went after the fans for "stealing" (they are not "stealing", they are copying...a different ball of wax, but a nice frame shift and it makes it sound so much more criminal).

And they complain that their revenues are going down because of file-sharing?

They have NEVER established that file-sharing is the reason the industry loses money...it is not established. My guess is that they are losing money because they gutted the industry of every morsel of soul it had and still expected it to make money on pre-packaged bullshit. That time-period just happened to coincide with the file-sharing phenomenon.

They need to face it....they destroyed music in the pursuit of profit. Not the fans. The fans, like always, just love the music. That has never changed. What HAS changed is their attitude towards copying music, which existed LONG before file sharing (most of us had massive quantities of cassettes we recorded from friends).

By the way, I am a musician and distribute my music for free. Most musicans I know feel the same way I do...the ONLY good thing these companies do is distribute. If they could get the exposure from another source and not have to charge fans for the music, they would. Nowadays it is all about merchandise and concert tickets to the musician, anyways. Artists make next to nothing from albumsales, and that is the fault of the industry for exploiting the musicians, not the fans. Oh, but the RIAA will hold up the musician as the sufferer from file sharing when they know perfectly well that the artist doesn't make money from album sales. They also like to hld up the grunt workers as the suffering masses, as well, but the industry controls their salaries....so go figure!

Any industry that makes its money primarily from lawsuits against their customers is moribund. Let them die on the vine.

[qb]

68. Another plug for CD Baby

That is one cool site. The Flash audio previews work way better than Windows Media or Real.

[mdmc]

69. also illegal to copy an LP to a tape

Corporations UBER ALLES!

[slackmaster]

70. Nonsense

There is nothing illegal about making a copy, for your own personal use, of an item that you lawfully own.

It's like making a photocopy of a book that you own. If you don't give it to someone else, or sell it, you haven't done anything illegal or wrong.

[tbyg52]

73. So the next time I buy a CD,

put it in the computer, and rip it, I'm opening myself to a lawsuit? And it's easy to prove, I'm assuming, since you connect to some server somewhere to look up the tracks (unless you want to type them in yourself).

This is beyond ridiculous. If they don't want me to format WHAT I'VE BOUGHT as mp3s, they can start supplying them in that format, as well, on the disk.

I understand the worry about massive file sharing, but they really need to come up with better solutions than they have so far. All they are doing so far is angering the paying customers.

[killbotfactory]

77. RIAAradar.com - boycott these assholes

avoid RIAA "protected" cd's, with the help of http://RIAAradar.com

[Franc_Lee]

78. Will RIAA inform the world all users are breaking the law copying their purchased/owned music

onto their 'OWN' computers? -->Microsoft asks me if I want to "Rip" CD contents to hard-drive?!?
What would Mr. Gates say about this recent RIAA claim?

[B Calm]

79. Hell I haven't bought music in years. I just go to the library

check out the CD's I want, and copy them to my computer. Guess I'm a crook.. oh well!

[walldude]

80. They are afraid... loss of control. Radiohead leads the way..

They know they are fucked in the next 20 years. Unless they can put the internet to sleep they know that within the next 10 or 20 years all artists will be distributing their own music over the internet, delivering the same quality to consumers at lower prices and keeping more of their own money. The record companies are a thing of the past. Making your living off the backs of hard working artists will also be a thing of the past. Radiohead has proven with it's recent release that fans will pay for music, especially if they know the artist gets most of the money.

[ikri]

83. Their ultimate aim is a license system

They don't just want to sell you a CD that you can play in your home CD player, play in your car, play on your computer & copy to your mp3 player. That's 4 separate platforms for the price of 1 CD.

Their aim is to have a system where you don't actually own the music you currently buy, in their ideal system you'd only rent it. They can then restrict the platforms where you can play your music and most importantly charge you when you listen to each song.

Prosecuting people who have ripped legitimately bought CDs to their computers is just the next step in the plan to create a per-play charging system.

[qb]

89. No matter what they come up with there will always be kids smarter than them

who will find a way to beat the license system and share it with the rest of the world.

[Crabby Appleton]

85. WaPo article is very misleading - Howell used kazaa to share files

and got caught - he was sued for distributing music files with kazaa, not for making copies. Below is a snip from the summary judgment:

Background

In an effort to reduce online infringement of copyrights they hold to sound recordings
of various musical artists, Plaintiffs Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment
Group, Inc., Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Capitol Records, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Sony
BMG Music Entertainment, and Arista Records (collectively, the “recording companies”)
hired an investigation company, MediaSentry, to detect unauthorized distribution and
reproduction of the recordings in online file-sharing systems. At 1:52 a.m. Eastern Time on
January 30, 2006, MediaSentry detected an individual who had 4,007 files available in a
shared folder on the Kazaa online file-sharing system. The investigation showed that 2,329
of the files were sound recordings. The relevant Internet service provider, Cox
Communications, Inc., identified the IP address associated with the shared folder as
registered to a Pamela Howell in Scottsdale, Arizona. Pamela Howell is Defendant Jeffrey
Howell’s wife.

During the investigation, MediaSentry took screenshots (images of a computer screen
display) showing the contents of the Kazaa shared folder. The folder and the files it
contained were registered to the Kazaa username “jeepkiller@kazaa.” Jeffrey Howell
(“Howell”) created both the username and the shared folder after downloading the Kazaa
file-sharing program to his previous computer. When he bought his current computer he
“networked both the computers together and transferred old files to new
computer.” (Doc. #31, Ex. 9 at 164.) Thus, at the time of the MediaSentry investigation,
Howell’s computer had his “entire body of Kazaa downloads on it from old computer”
along with additional files he added to the Kazaa collection. Id. The files, available to all
other Kazaa users for download from the shared folder, included 54 specific sound
recordings of musical artists for which the recording companies own valid copyrights.
The recording companies filed this action for copyright infringement against Howell
and his wife on August 29, 2006, and now move for summary judgment on that claim,
arguing that there is no disputed material fact that Howell violated their exclusive distribution
right for the 54 identified sound recordings. Howell, proceeding pro se, denies liability on
the grounds that he was at work when the MediaSentry investigation took place, that he owns
compact discs containing the sound recordings at issue and “translated” them to his computer
for personal use, and that “a malfunction or tampering by a third party is responsible for
files being available on the nternet.” (Doc. # 33.)

read the whole judgement if interested :

http://www.ilrweb.com/ILRPDFs/atlantic_howell_070820OrderGrantSumJudg.pdf

[TexasLawyer]

87. Thanks, Crabby--

You beat me to this by seconds! Thanks for the link.

[xultar]

92. I hate the RIAA but clarity needed to be brought to this post. No one will read your post though,

[TexasLawyer]

86. There was third party SONG SHARING in this case-- done through KaZaa

This blog does NOT give the whole story-- it is very one-sided against the music industry.

The defendant was sharing these 2,000 songs through KaZaa, a peer-to-peer sharing network. Third parties were accessing Mr. Howell's many MP3 files-- the music files were put there in his shared folder to share through the KaZaa network. That is precisely how Mr. Howell came to the Plaintiffs' attention in the first place.

In Atlantic v. Howell , an anti-piracy lawsuit in Arizona, the RIAA is making the case that, while it's not illegal to rip CDs for personal use, it IS illegal if you store ripped tracks in a folder that is shared : Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.

The judge ruled in the RIAA's favor on this-- there was unauthorized file sharing and copyright violation. It doesn't look like the case is that unusual.

[Hugabear]

90. That's not entirely correct

The industry specifically tries to state that making a copy of a CD on your computer is illegal. And this isn't the first time either - if you read the entire article, a Sony lawyer made the exact same claim in a separate case - that copying a song is the same as "stealing a song".

I agree that they're using an unusual tactic to try and get a conviction here. Nobody's disputing the fact that the defendant wasn't engaging in file sharing. It's the way the music industry is going about it that is putting them at odds with everyone.

[onenote]

91. actually, in their pleading, RIAA doesn't call the copy 'illegal'

they call it 'unauthorized' -- which technically is true. Whether an unauthorized copy is legal depends on whether making it was fair use. If the copy was made not for personal use, then its not fair use and its illegal.

Nothing new about what RIAA is arguing here.

[Hugabear]

96. Read the whole thing

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."
...
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.

It's also worth noting that the industry has fought against practically every new technological advance that gives consumers more freedom. They fought against VCRs, CD recorders, DVD recorders, MP3 players, and now they're fighting against Blu-Ray and HD-DVD hi-def recorders. That in itself should tell you that the industry does not want you to have the ability to make copies.

[onenote]

98. read the pleading in the Howell case

They don't want people to have the ability to makea copies for other than personal use. They would prefer that those copies be made onto Audio CD-Rs, or DAT tapes for which they receive royalties, and while they won't concede that copying onto a hard drive or music player is "authorized" they implicitly acknowledge that such copying is fair use and, notwithstanding their rhetoric, pigs will fly before they go after anyone for merely making copies for their own personal use.

[Occulus]

99. Them pigs is a-growin' wings as you type

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2560680&mesg_id=2563051

It's not the RIAA, but it may as well be. I fully expect the RIAA to try here in the US something like what that organization in Scotland is doing. What's next- suing fratboys at a party because they're giving a "public performance" when they turn the stereo up?

I wouldn't put it past the RIAA to lobby for a "decibel copyright threshold", meaning if you play your music above a certain volume, you're giving a public performance.

Go ahead, tell me it's an ugly fantasy. They've long since gone beyond the bounds of what I call "reasonable" behavior, and I'm no longer willing to put anything at all past them.

By the way, don't they already receive royalties on blank audio-capable media, like blank cassettes and CDs and such? Why isn't that enough for them, and why aren't their lawsuits considered double-dipping?

And why aren't the artists themselves required to go after each sharer individually? Why is the RIAA allowed to represent them? How do we know that each and every artist approves of each and every lawsuit against their own listeners?

I think it's time an enterprising DA filed extortion and RICO charges against the RIAA. That would put the kibosh on these suits right quick, I expect.

[onenote]

101. I guarantee that what you describe is not part of RIAA's agenda

RIAA's first order of business over the next few years is its fight against the broadcast industry to change the law so that radio stations have to pay a performance royalty to the record companies (with RIAA proposing that the law state that 1/2 of those royalties be distributed to artists). They are not going to undermine their primarly legislative agenda by attempting to place new restrictions on personal use.

As for your question about blank media, RIAA's position is that if copies are made for personal use on those types of blank media for which royatlies are paid -- DAT tapes, certain "audio" CD-Rs, then the copying is authorized. They won't make a similar concession for copying to hard drives, mp3 players etc., but they also acknowledge that they don't really care about such copying if its for personal use, not for further distribution.

As for your question as to why the artists dont' have to go after the sharers individually and why can RIAA bring the suit, the first part of the answer is that RIAA isn't the one bring the suit. The suit was brought by various record companies jointly. THe named plaintiffs in the suit against Howell are Atlantic Records, Elektra Records, Warner Records,Capitol Records, Arista, BMG, and UMG. And they are the plaintiffs, not the individual artists because they, not the artists, own the copyright in the "sound recording" that is being, allegedly, unlawfully distributed.

So, I don't think you'll be finding anyone bringing RICO charges against RIAA.

[NashVegas]

113. RIAA Is an Empty Shell

The labels it represents are teetering on the abyss, and most music lovers - and many industry insiders - will happily watch it go over the cliff.

If enough people fight back against the file sharing lawsuits, the labels will bankrupt themselves with legal fees.

A law that the majority ignores is a bad law.

As for radio, well that's a farce. RIAA demanded the internet CARP and is now using that as the argument for terrestrial performance fees? Rich.

Lyle Lovett went to Capital Hill to testify, well I'll point out there's not a radio station in America where anyone's getting rich by playing Lyle Lovett and 2/3 of the Music First Coalition. The RIAA should pay me a royalty for every song I've ever back-announced or pre-sold if you want to play that game.

[onenote]

114. As Lyle Lovett said in his testimony:

"No one tunes into a radio station to hear the commercials." Radio stations make money by attracting listeners with music; while its true that the record industry benefits from the exposure that they get from radio airplay, the current approach distorts the market by basically saying that no matter how much or how little exposure an artist gets, the station can use the recording for free. What's particuarly goofy is that the composer of the song does get compensated by the radio stations even though in many many cases it is the particular performance of the song, not the song itself, that makes it attractive to listeners and, thus, attractive to radio stations. Also, the idea that radio stations promote the purchase of records is not true in all instances. "Oldies" stations in particular sell advertising by playing songs without achieving much in the way of sales promotion.

THink of it this way. The songwriters claim that they are most important because, without their songs, there would be nothing for performers to perform, recording companies to record, or radio stations to play. Peformers dispute this, claiming that they are the most important because it is often the performance of a composition that makes it popular (citing the number of songs that are bigger hits as performed by one artist as compared to an earlier performance). The record companies say that they are the most important because they take the risk and make the investment in producing and releasing recordings of songs, without which neither the song nor a particular performance of it could be heard. And the radio stations say that they're the most important because they give peformers a way to reach an audience that will then buy the record, see them in concert etc.

The fact is that record companies as we know them, and radio stations, as we know them, are in danger of becoming obsolete -- replaced by new technologies and formats. That process should occur naturally, without radio stations being propped up by the artificial subsidy of receiving access to content without paying for it.

[NashVegas]

115. The Performers Get Compensated When Records Get Sold Because People Heard It On the Radio

If the performers are not getting compensated, it's because they signed a bad deal.

Radio stations do not have free access to music, other than what the labels ship to us because they are hoping and, in some cases, leaning heavily on us to play.

There's not a musician or label employee, anywhere, who does not understand the direct connection between airplay and record sales.

This is about the same thing all the other RIAA suits are about: control. Control over distribution, control over what gets promoted. A radio station with crappy ratings that plays Lyle Lovett and all the other talented but deluded artists at MFC cannot be as profitable as a station that plays all the top hits - the hits that are dictated by labels' promotional budgets.

[onenote]

116. In some cases there is a connection between airplay and sales and in some cases, not

It certainly varies by the type of music, whether it is a "new" recording on a 'hits' station or a recording not in current release played on an oldies station, to give just one example. Indeed, there are studies that suggest that the relationship between airplay and sales is vastly overestimated.

But the point isn't that record companies should always get paid. Its that under the current law they never get paid. Yet composers do. And other platforms that perform recorded music (and presumably promote sales of such) have to pay both composers and record companies. It is the unbalance that should be rectified.

One other example: television programming is increasingly being distributed in more than one way, including repurposing on cable networks, availability for download and replay on computers and mobile devices, and through the sale of DVD box sets. Certainly one could argue that the performance of a television show promotes the sale of that show on DVD. But I can't really imagine anyone contending that television stations shouldn't have to pay anything for television programming. Rather, how much, if anything, is paid by someone to use someone else's intellectual property as part of a commercial enterprise (like a radio station) should be decided by the relative judgment of the owner and user regarding the non-cash benefits received by the creator from the use.

Or to beat an admittedly dead horse: televising sporting events can in some instances promote home attendance, and in other instances it can take away from it (hockey is a good example where the league hopes that televising games will promote attendance rather than cause it to decline). In other instances, televising poses the risk of providing a substitute for home attendance. HOw much a league/team accepts for the rights to televise its games and how much a station is willing to pay, are determined by the market, not by a legal ban on the league/team asking for compensation.

[Kermitt Gribble]

88. The RIAA need to realize

the problem is they've been putting out a sorry excuse for music for the past 15 years. They need to stop crying "piracy" as the reason they are losing money.

[Xenotime]

95. They are correct. You own the physical disc but not the content on it.

[treestar]

100. Even if true, how could they enforce it?

How many lawsuits could they file? And even if they won, how could it be worth it? Their damages would be too insignificant.

Some people never know where to draw the line. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

102. If they would spend 1/20th the energy they expend trying to hold back the tide of technology on

finding and promoting halfway decent music- as opposed to the boardroom cheez whiz which saturates the airwaves, maybe they wouldn't be heading the way of the Dinosaurs.

[lovuian]

104. their just ticking off more and more people

and getting no where

[Dawggie]

105. Two Words... err three

Proxy servers and partials.

[LTR]

107. They're grasping at straws

And playing a rather dangerous game.

If the RIAA would use all this energy to learn how to actually work with technology and the internet and stop wasting time pissing off their customers, we'd all be much happier. They tried to stop radio from playing recordings back in the early days. That didn't work. They tried to kill the blank cassette. Yeah, a lot of good that did. And they're making the same mistakes yet again.

Incidentally, how would a company like Sony, which owns one of the major recording labels, explain their line of MP3 players, CD burners and computers with burners and programs installed such as Windows Media Player? Are they enablers?

[Zynx]

108. I oppose downloading music you haven't bought, but this is ridiculous.

They can go to Hell.

[redqueen]

109. Money money money money... MONEY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny_j-bAhq68


What the traffic will bear, folks. Don't like it? Stop buying.

[RedCappedBandit]

110. Thats fine

More bands will follow the path of Radiohead, etc.
Fuck this war on the people. Why the hell are businesses held in higher regard?

[flashl]

111. Blackwater, RIAA Join Forces to Combat Music Piracy

Blackwater USA, the rogue security company accused of sport killing innocent civilians in Iraq, has agreed to provide “tactical enforcement capabilities” for the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

"We are proud to be working with the RIAA,” said Blackwater founder, Erik Prince, on 60 Minutes Sunday night. “Every time a scumbag college kid living off his daddy’s credit card downloads music, the terrorists win. We have the resources to do something about that.”

By signing its historic pact with Blackwater—which is authorized to use “all necessary force” to deliver subpoenas and to monitor the collection of pretrial judgements—the RIAA has signaled its intent to take the fight against music pirates to the next level.

“Winning outrageous judgments against single mothers by bribing judges and packing juries with Neanderthals is gratifying,” said RIAA Chairman & CEO Mitch Brainwall, “but that process is slower than a dial-up Internet connection. When you’ve got the world’s largest private army knocking down, I mean ‘knocking on,’ doors for you, people tend to take notice. If you don’t believe me, ask the surviving relatives of Iraqi civilians who resisted Blackwater’s directives.”

Read Full Text

[Javaman]

117. Okay, if that's the case let them go afte bill gates or steve jobs

I'm sure they have a few on their computers.