Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[dargrin]

Nice......

 

From the Washington Post.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

 

Whether 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.

[vejlin]

The music industry seems hellbent on killing itself isn't it?

 

Seems to me that they've pretty much succeeded in alienating even the most die hard customers. By trying to criminalizing their normal customers they're killing themselves long term.

 

Also I'd like to see the manufacturers of mp3 players get into this one. If it's illegal to put a copy on your computer it's also illegal to put a copy on your Ipod.

 

Personally I'm at the point that if they're so intent on treating me like a criminal when I go spend my hard earned money to legally acquire music, I'll stop acquiring it legally. I mean if my intended use is already deemed illegal by these people then why even pay them the money to begin with?

 

Luckily danish copyright law is a lot more sane than US copyright. RIAA can scream at me till their heads turn purple and they pass out for all I care. What I'm doing is legal according to danish copy right law, so HA!!!

[Qwyksilver]

I'm still trying to figure out how they managed to find the guy that copied his CD's onto his computer for personal use, but didn't share the files with others...

[SaintRigger]

Jeff is being sued because of file sharing - however the RIAA is calling every ripped copy "Unauthorized"

 

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-no...jerks-about-it/

 

"Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?"

[Lars Porsenna]

So much for Fair Use...

 

Damon.

[Rastl]

He had the files in a 'shared folder' even though he didn't share the folder.

 

That's the argument.

[kristof65]

Well then, I'm in big trouble. I ripped every CD we own to a network drive, so that I can access the music from any computer in the house and put it on USB sticks for our car stereos. Ouch - my wife and I have the same songs on two different USB sticks - gosh, I hope those never fall into an RIAA executive's hands.

 

Someone should really sit these exec's down and repeatedly read them Eric Flint's reports on making his books available as free eBooks until they get the point - responsible sharing increases sales. It worked for Eric Flint, it's worked for most of the other Baen writer's who've participated, and it appears to work for dozens and dozens of up and coming garage bands who are giving their music away for free online.

[SaintRigger]

Someone needs to sit the record execs down and explain to them in simple detail the changes in technology in the last 20 years.

 

Also, they need to be informed that the Intarnets isn't a series of tubes.

[mattmcl]

Does the industry remember what happened to Metallica?

 

Where do you draw the line? If I buy a download of an album, can I make a backup copy in case my hard drive crashes? If I want to put it on my mp3 player, do I have to delete the file on the computer, only to have to put it back when I take it off the mp3 player? If I set up Windows Media Player to stream my songs to me over the internet, so I can listen at work, do I break the law because the stream is essentially a copy of the file?

 

These people are nuts.

[vejlin]

yup, and that they can't see this is hurting the industry far more than it's helping just highlights how ignorant they are about technology.

[kristof65]

Where do you draw the line? If I buy a download of an album, can I make a backup copy in case my hard drive crashes? If I want to put it on my mp3 player, do I have to delete the file on the computer, only to have to put it back when I take it off the mp3 player? If I set up Windows Media Player to stream my songs to me over the internet, so I can listen at work, do I break the law because the stream is essentially a copy of the file?

That's probably the way they'd like to see it work - or that you buy a seperate copy for each device.

 

Their DRM schemes are nuts - I bought some MP3s from WalMart's music store, and loaded them onto an SD card on my PDA. Later on, one of my co-workers and I were talking about music, and I wanted to play her one of the songs. I tried putting the SD card into her PC to play her the song, but the stupid DRM blocked me from playing it on her computer - I didn't even copy it over from my SD card to her computer, I was using my same card! Later on, I bought a new PDA, and guess what? Darn thing wouldn't play on my new PDA. WalMart and their download provider wouldn't help me transfer the license at all. So when the PC that I originally downloaded the files to bit the dust, I wasn't surprised I had completely lost my music.

 

At that point in time I vowed not to buy another MP3 unless it didn't have copy protection. Since then, all my music purchases have been CDs that I've ripped to MP3. The CDs are just sitting on a shelf getting dusty, but at least they're there as a back up.

 

Hmm, now that I think about it, I probably wouldn't mind the device limiting DRM scheme so much if they were charging a penny per song...

[daHob]

Someone should really sit these exec's down and repeatedly read them Eric Flint's reports on making his books available as free eBooks until they get the point - responsible sharing increases sales. It worked for Eric Flint, it's worked for most of the other Baen writer's who've participated, and it appears to work for dozens and dozens of up and coming garage bands who are giving their music away for free online.

 

They probably already have and that's why they fight this stuff so hard. Remember, the RIAA does not represent artists, it represents the recording industry. If artists can cheaply distribute songs directly to the public themselves, then suddenly no one needs to deal with the labels any more.

 

Books are a lot more robust in this manner. A lot of folks hate reading lengthy stuff on computers. So, until they perfect electronic paper (which should be commercial in a few years) the publishing industry will probably profit from this model. I think it will ultimately kill the recording guys.

[Helltown]

I've never really understood all this RIAA stuff but the fact that they're saying ripping a CD to your home computer is 'stealing a copy' of a CD, a CD that you bought and paid for really annoys me. I have 9 CDs... in total, complete collection. That's up 3 from 2006, I bought the Lord of the Rings soundtracks. To hear that because I ripped them to my non-Internet capable home computer (not my internet capable laptop at the store), I've broken the law....

 

I don't download music or movies, I don't even like to keep TV shows on VHS after the season comes out on DVD... *sigh* Of course, that being said, they'll probably try and sue me because I've a copy of a White Stripes CD that a friend gave me (it's a lovely coaster, I bought the actual CD about a day after I got the burned copy, stupid CD-Rs... can't reuse 'em).

[kristof65]

*sigh* Of course, that being said, they'll probably try and sue me because I've a copy of a White Stripes CD that a friend gave me (it's a lovely coaster, I bought the actual CD about a day after I got the burned copy, stupid CD-Rs... can't reuse 'em).

See - that's where these guys are really stupid - your friend gave you a copy, and you liked it enough to go buy the real thing the next day. So the probability is, your friend breaking the law actually made the record industry money, it didn't cost them anything. I say probability rather than fact, because only you can actually answer whether or not your friends "gift' inspired you to buy. Hmm, actually it could be said that your friends copy actually benefitted the economy (if not the environment) more than just you buying the CD yourself - after all, the CD-R manufacturer got a sale out of it, too.

 

Most people prefer something tangible in their hands, and they prefer the real thing over copies. I know I do - I've long since replaced all my bootleg VHS copies of various movies and TV shows with real DVDs. Of course, one of the arguments the recording and movie industries make about digital is that copies are "perfect" and they don't degrade like analog copies do when you copy a copy, and therefore original's aren't as desirable. That's not necessarily so - for example, I'm partially tone deaf, and I can't tell the difference between a medium quality MP3 vs a high quality one - so I rip all my MP3s at the smallest size where I can't hear the difference to save on space. I've had friends complain to me that I need a better stereo in my car and I should rip the MP3s to a higher quality. Why should I, I like it just fine. I guarantee any audiophile listening to one of my MP3s is going to be disappointed, and look for another source (of course, I don't share mine all that often, but were my collection to fall into some file sharer's hands, he'd be disappointed).

 

In my experience, if you make it easy and cheap for people to be honest, most people will be honest. Start treating them like a thief, and well, they will act like one. The recording industry has always been against fair use - they were up in arms when cassette decks hit the market, because "copying was going to kill the industry." Same with the movie studios when VCRs came out. If anything, cassette decks and VCRs have grown their industries. The RIAA execs could be sitting on an even fatter fortune than they are now if they had been the ones to create the MP3 bandwagon - Nope, now all the money's going to Apple, Yahoo and Napster, and they're fighting for their "fair" share.

[Lars Porsenna]

Most people prefer something tangible in their hands, and they prefer the real thing over copies. I know I do - I've long since replaced all my bootleg VHS copies of various movies and TV shows with real DVDs.

 

You know, this really is something here. I can think of two anecdotes of mine that support this. On a nostalgia trip I was watching Smashing Pumpkins videos an Youtube...which lead me to buy one of their CDs. Similarly, after someone mentioned the band Hammerfall, and a few downloads later, I bought nearly the entire back catolog. And my favorite metal band -- Lords of Wierd Slough Feg -- I bought CHIEFLY because I downloaded some of their songs -- free! -- off the band's website.

 

Note that the same thing goes on in the modeling world. Tamiya just released a US WWII Jeep in 1/48 scale. No mention of the word "Jeep" (which is trademarked) on the box, because AFAIK they couldn't get the rights. There's even rumours that the engine grill does not have the correct number of slots as this is trademarked as well. They're afraid of getting sued over it, despite the fact it is free advertizing for jeep, and may encourage more sales -- for no cost in advertising (you're letting someone else expend capital, time, and resources to give you FREE market presence, as small as that may be...). A similar thing is happening in the world of Model RRing (Railroad lines are requiring licensing fees to use their liveries).

 

Failure to innovate -- or capitalize on it.

 

Damon, feels we're lawyering all the fun out of life...