Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[Azure]

Despite 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

Wow.

Stupidity at its best.

So, we're all supposed to throw away our Mp3 players and go back to the good ol' discman? Geez.

I especially like this gem.

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.

Where do they find these morons to come up with this crap?

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."

How many times has Bobblehead said that the entertainment business has to adapt to better technology in order to keep up? I can't believe the idiots who want to sue people who 'legally' buy CDs, and put them on their computer, actually have a job.

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.

[Knut]

I think that you are going to see a lot more Direct from Artist purchasing.

[DementedReality]

well, as said before, if the music has a license that says it may not be copied, then it is not allowed to be copied. period.although, i think they need to make it more clear what you are agreeing to when you purchase the CD.like it or not though, if the terms of purchase says you may not copy, then you may not copy. lump it or leave it, thats your choice.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by fotze

This will be as successful as the campaign to stop boys from masterbating.

lol...

yup this doesnt stop people...makes me want to download more for free..not going to fund their stupid crusade.

[flip]

The RIAA and the MPAA are the biggest asshats on the planet. i don't usually wish harm to people but if both of the headquarters of these organizations burned to the ground this world would be a better place.

BTW great movie about the MPAA called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" IMDB link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Hesla

I think that you are going to see a lot more Direct from Artist purchasing.

Yep. I think Radiohead probably made more money from people directly choosing to pay online for In Rainbows than they would have if they had released it through a label which spends a fortune fighting legal battles or propping up the RIAA and related associations.

[Bobblehead]

Sony BMG is the ONLY major label who still refuses to sell songs without Digital Rights Management, since a few days ago Warner Music annouced they are dropping DRM for music sales.
http://opinion.latimes.com/bitplayer...-goes-drm.html

The music business is being dragged into the present kicking and screaming. In Oct, 1998 the RIAA sued Diamond RIO - the makers of the original MP3 player - in an attempt to prevent it from ever being sold. The RIAA lost the first round and then agreed to form a group to examine the legal methods of developing a new way of "securing" digital download. That group has been inactive since 2001.

And yet even though 3 of the 4 major music publishers in the world have seen teh writing on the wall and given up on DRM, still there was almost a draconian Copyright Nillintroduced into the legislature just before Christmas. Still new TVs and High Def DVD players are developed around DRM.

The tighter content industries (which really, if you think about them, have only existed for a century and exist only because technology came along which allowed music to be stored) continue to hold onto their antiquated methods, the more people feel alienated by them. The can thing of it 2 ways: either like they are squeezing mud and the harder they squeeze the more oozes through their fingers; or it is like they are holding a bird, and the more they squeeze it, well...

[icarus]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well, as said before, if the music has a license that says it may not be copied, then it is not allowed to be copied. period.although, i think they need to make it more clear what you are agreeing to when you purchase the CD.like it or not though, if the terms of purchase says you may not copy, then you may not copy. lump it or leave it, thats your choice.

I don't know, there is no license agreement entered into upon purchase of a CD by a consumer. It is not like software where you are supposed to read the terms and click 'I agree' before using it.

CDs say 'unauthorised copying prohibited' but they haven't really defined what is authorised.

Historically, if you have purchased it you have personal use rights to do whatever you want with it for personal use only. It seems they now want to restrict personal use rights which is not progressing thinking on their part at all, and it is hard to imagine a court will rule in favour of restricting personal use rights now after decades of cassette dubbing and CD ripping.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well, as said before, if the music has a license that says it may not be copied, then it is not allowed to be copied. period.although, i think they need to make it more clear what you are agreeing to when you purchase the CD.like it or not though, if the terms of purchase says you may not copy, then you may not copy. lump it or leave it, thats your choice.

The law is stupid.

How are you supposed to listen to music if 'buy' the CDs, but don't own a CD player?

Normally, you'd buy the CDs, rip the music, organize it on your computer, and put what you want on your Mp3 player.

Nothing 'illegal' about that. You're NOT stealing anything.

Their stupid law needs to be changed.

I think I'll go download another few gigs of music. That ought to keep the industry happy.

[Flames_Gimp]

awesome, more motivation for me to Never buy a cd..

[Bobblehead]

In the US there is currently contradicting case law on the validity of click-wrap or shrink-wrap agreements.

This also exists in Canada:

In Canada, consumer intellectual property goods are, in principle, subject to what is frequently called a first sale doctrine. Once a physical item containing intellectual property, such as a book, audio CD or video tape has been sold, the end user may, at his/her discretion, physically move, resell, lend or annotate (e.g. write notes in the margins of a book) the item. Indeed, the owner can do nearly anything to the item, short of produce additional copies or violate the creator's moral rights.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/.../rp00585e.html

If you don't like how it will be used, you have the right not to sell it. But in the case of shrink-wrap agreements, the article in question has already been sold.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

The law is stupid.

How are you supposed to listen to music if 'buy' the CDs, but don't own a CD player?

Normally, you'd buy the CDs, rip the music, organize it on your computer, and put what you want on your Mp3 player.

Nothing 'illegal' about that. You're NOT stealing anything.

Their stupid law needs to be changed.

I think I'll go download another few gigs of music. That ought to keep the industry happy.

###!

[RougeUnderoos]

This reminds me of good ol' Garth Brooks bitching about used cds and how he doesn't get paid twice -- it's both stupid and arrogant.

They simply are not going to turn this thing around and the more they try, the more people they alienate, and the more they'll steal, and the more they'll justify it by saying "the record companies try to rip me off".

How long has this been going on now? 10 years? And it's getting easier all the time. I swear, these "initiatives" and "lawsuits" are just launched so the people at the RIAA have something to do.

[Hemi-Cuda]

i used to buy CD's up to about a year ago. i still downloaded a lot of stuff but for bands i really liked i went out and spent the money, figuring that if i get enough use out of their material they should be compensated. but now i refuse to purchase another album unless i'm positive it comes directly from the band (like their website store). there is no way that i will allow any of my money to be used by the RIAA or any of the behemoth record companies for their pig headed litigation. it sucks that the bands have to suffer because of this kind of stupidity, but hopefully more will realize that they can make a lot more money by breaking off from the record industry and doing it themselves

[Azure]

Just reading through some other forums...

In late November, EMI ... announced that they’d be “substantially cutting their funding to industry’s trade bodies.” ... A couple days [later] Warner Music Group announced that they made less than half the amount of money that Radiohead did for the year. The cause? A significant portion of the proceeds from artist creativity went directly to suing the customers by way of contributions to the RIAA ... Prince this year was so disappointed by the fact that the RIAA had been unable to stop the piracy of his music by suing 12 year olds that he took to suing them himself.

Gee, I wonder why?

All this adds up to one thing for me: the death of the RIAA is near. Time and time again the industry has shown they have no clue as to how to properly adapt to the digital landscape, and musical acts like Radiohead, Trent Reznor and Madonna have all realized great success selling their music without the aid of a major label.

Good.

The Scottsdale, Arizona resident is being targeted by the recording industry for keeping his collection of about 2,000 songs on his computer. He bought them on CD and transferred them to his computer, which the RIAA says is illegal.

The case is not new (Howell was first brought into the file-sharing legal mix in 2006), but the RIAA has filed a supplemental brief that says ripping music from legally purchased CDs is illegal. On page 15 of the document, it reads: "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."

The interesting part in the case against Howell is why the RIAA wants to waste its time; the Audio Home Recording Act (17 US 1008) says a citizen cannot be sued for making a digital copy of a song, as long as it's for personal use. The Act reads: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

Sigh.

Yes, and the recording industry does wonder why we all hate them.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well, as said before, if the music has a license that says it may not be copied, then it is not allowed to be copied. period.although, i think they need to make it more clear what you are agreeing to when you purchase the CD.like it or not though, if the terms of purchase says you may not copy, then you may not copy. lump it or leave it, thats your choice.

you do realize that by the letter of the law that the RIAA and MPAA would like to enforce in the states you're pretty much not allowed to even listen to the music contained on that cd, correct?

Pop that cd into your computer (to listen to, not to rip) and a copy, in whole or in part, gets put into RAM.
Ever wonder how skip protection on a CD player works?

[Myth]

So when do they start suing computer manufacturers for enabling people to download and rip music?

[corporatejay]

While I hate the RIAA, I think the MPAA is the one who is completely missing the boat. Rather than investing in some sort of DRM protection to have first run movies shown in people's homes they use the Oscar's as some sort of "tribute to going to the theatre". Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing a movie on the big screen as much as the next guy. What I don't like is having to get there at 7:15 for a 10pm showing of I AM Legend on opening night then having some bratty teens (I know, I was one of them once..more proof i'm getting old) talking, coughing to be funny, throwing popcorn etc... For 35 bucks I'd gladly watch it at home in HD on my TV/Surround system.

Trust me, there is a market for that....I don't download Telesync's or Cams because they look and sound like garbage, but I also can't clear an afternoon/evening to see a movie, and sometimes I only have time to see them late at night (like 2am) why they don't offer a first run PPV service is beyond me.

[SarichFan]

I was thinking about this and man, It makes no sense at all to me. You buy something, you own it for your own personal use.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

While I hate the RIAA, I think the MPAA is the one who is completely missing the boat. Rather than investing in some sort of DRM protection to have first run movies shown in people's homes they use the Oscar's as some sort of "tribute to going to the theatre". Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing a movie on the big screen as much as the next guy. What I don't like is having to get there at 7:15 for a 10pm showing of I AM Legend on opening night then having some bratty teens (I know, I was one of them once..more proof i'm getting old) talking, coughing to be funny, throwing popcorn etc... For 35 bucks I'd gladly watch it at home in HD on my TV/Surround system.

Trust me, there is a market for that....I don't download Telesync's or Cams because they look and sound like garbage, but I also can't clear an afternoon/evening to see a movie, and sometimes I only have time to see them late at night (like 2am) why they don't offer a first run PPV service is beyond me.

A good Rick Mercer take from back in '04
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mercerreport/piracy.rm