RIAA Says Illegal To Copy Songs To CPU

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,994
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#1
It's illegal to copy a legally purchased CD and put it on your computer for personal use, in the RIAA's eyes.

Talk about desperation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693_pf.html

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


[SIZE=-1]By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; M05
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.
[/SIZE]
 

Chino Kapone

Yo, whats wrong wit da beer we got?
Jun 10, 2005
16,959
2,196
608
#2
Wow, they are freaking out. So that means the millions of people who have Ipods need to be sued. Im guessing the RIAA is just upset things are not like they were in the late 90's when an album would drop and it would sell 500,000 -1mil in its first week.
 

crippledalbino

The God of 42nd Street
Donator
Aug 16, 2006
40,622
11,972
628
The Oh-See, Fuck-Asses
#3
Enough.
The RIAA is doing a great job of ruining the whole industry. They're nickel-and-diming the fans, suing their customers, and for what? I support my bands, I buy their CDs with actual money, but if I want to listen to it portably, I should be able to.

Yeah! Enraged, and stuff.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,994
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
Wow, they are freaking out. So that means the millions of people who have Ipods need to be sued. Im guessing the RIAA is just upset things are not like they were in the late 90's when an album would drop and it would sell 500,000 -1mil in its first week.
Yeah, and the consumer would be the one dumping $15-$20 on an album for which they'll only listen to maybe 5 songs. Oh, and then you have the $4 CD singles that contain one of those 5 you like and bonus tracks that you want to get your hands on.

On the rare occasion that I've got my hands on an audio CD...it's when I purchase it and download it to my iPod. From there, I throw it in the closet. But now, the RIAA is saying that's against the law. So sharing files is just a small portion of their attack on the consumer. They're now willing to go after consumers that are only putting songs onto a computer, whether it'd be for personal use or to share.

You give them an inch, they'll demand a foot. Illegal file sharing was only the beginning, now they want to go after My Music folders on everyone's computer and determine which files were downloaded from an audio CD that the computer's owner bought with their own money.
 

Chino Kapone

Yo, whats wrong wit da beer we got?
Jun 10, 2005
16,959
2,196
608
#5
The RIAA can fuck off. I still buy 1 or 2 cds a month, but this just makes me want to dl everything i can.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,801
6,920
763
F.U.B.A.R
#6
I've never downloaded any "shared" music because I felt it was ripping off the artist who had created it. Only purchased CD's and loaded them onto my PC because it's easier then going through a couple of hundred CD's to find one to listen to.

However, FUCK those RIAA extortion bastards with a HIV stick. Cocksuckingmotherfuckers should eatabullet.com
 
Dec 9, 2004
18,504
231
528
Baton Rouge
#7
I had 600 legally purchased CD's stolen from me.

The insurance company didn't cover them.

If RIAA claims that they actually own the music, even though i bought the CD's, wouldn't that make them responsible for replacing them? 600 CD's with an average of 13 songs at 9250 per song is roughly 66.6 million.

hmmmm
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,665
9,670
848
#8
ok ill make a deal with them, they can buy back my 400+ cd's (some of which i have bought mutable copy's of because the cd's broke or became un playable) and i will pay for the maybe 300 or so songs that i listen to. while there at it i have a STACK of vinyl that they can buy back (at current prices taking into account for inflation) and several milk crates of tapes that were replaced buy CD's. hell since im thinking about it, they can buy back all my video tapes, dvd's and get this, video disc's. how about a few milk crates of BETA tapes that i cant play because my beta max is broken. god i hope someone finally wins against them
 

weeniewawa

it's a man, baby!!!
May 21, 2005
12,076
1,267
593
Hell,California
#9
I'm still waiting on the refund from them for all the cassettes I purchased in the 80's that stretched from playing more than 3 times and warped from the heat in my car. If they own them I guess it is legal to download the songs to replace the damaged ones.
 

crippledalbino

The God of 42nd Street
Donator
Aug 16, 2006
40,622
11,972
628
The Oh-See, Fuck-Asses
#10
It's the same for any format change. When we switched from vinyl to cassettes, did they charge us every time we taped a song on a mix tape or recorded an album to play in our cars, or whatever?

The answer is that the greedy fuckers would have if they could have, but now that there's a digital signature of a copy, they know how to find us.

They'll **** us for every penny they can, you know they will.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,994
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#11
I'm guessing the RIAA is just afraid that any songs that end up on any computer could eventually end up on file sharing sites. This may just be a test for them to see if they can begin suing individuals that only download to their own computer. If they win, expect a wave of letters to more people in this same situation. And again, it's only going to dig the recording industry's grave deeper.
 

crippledalbino

The God of 42nd Street
Donator
Aug 16, 2006
40,622
11,972
628
The Oh-See, Fuck-Asses
#12
But the music is already out there and being shared. Seriously, at this point, how do you shut that down? How do you shut down the buckets and buckets of P2P sites where users are just constantly swishing data back and forth?
 

Chino Kapone

Yo, whats wrong wit da beer we got?
Jun 10, 2005
16,959
2,196
608
#13
The RIAA should embrace file shaning the way Apple did. They need to figure out another way to make their money instead of going after their customer. No one is going to want to buy a product if they might be sued for using using it on their Mp3 player.

When file sharing first hit Sony was trying to find a way to stop it, while Apple was finding a way to market it.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,665
9,670
848
#14
what i dont under stand is people are actually paying them, they would have a better chance of seeing me walk on water than giving them a dime more than i already have, and still do, my old lady buys shit all the time, hell like i said earlier i replaced all my tapes with cd's because tapes were total shit.... hell i even have some 8 tracks. god i hope someone brings this up to them, but they wont. fucking thieves is what they are, how about all the artists that they have fucked over the years. where's there money.....
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
I haven't paid a penny for music in over 5 years. Never will again at this rate. If I want to support an artist I'll buy a concert ticket.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,665
9,670
848
#18
I haven't paid a penny for music in over 5 years. Never will again at this rate. If I want to support an artist I'll buy a concert ticket.
thats another issue, how about all the artists that dont see a penny from there music because of one loop hole or another. hell i bet they dont even see penny's on the dollar for these songs sold, it all goes to the record companys
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,994
5,388
838
Wilmington, NC
#19
I haven't paid a penny for music in over 5 years. Never will again at this rate. If I want to support an artist I'll buy a concert ticket.
I'll typically buy CD's if they're one of my favorite artists and there would be a good chance that I'll end up liking most of or all of the CD. There were times quite often where I'd hear two songs from an artist and eventually get motivated to buy their $17 CD, only to find out the rest of the album is crap. Granted, there's risk involved in purchasing music and not coming out of it 50%-100% satisfied. But still, if I really like a song that I hear in a commercial or on the radio and I have got to have it for my personal collection...my only option was to buy their full CD or record off the radio which plain sucks. There's a chance a $4 single might have been released for that particular song, but that's not always the case. So, you're paying upwards of $15-$20 for a song you know you like and twelve others you've never even heard and may not like. The recording industry made alot of their money this way, and it pissed off alot of consumers.

In comes the Napsters, Kazaas, and later torrent sites and now people have a much, much easier way of getting whatever songs they want. It's just a click away and it's yours. How on the earth did the recording industry not see this coming? And how in the world do they ever think it can be stopped 10 years after it began? This network of p2p file sharing and now, individuals simply loading songs onto their computer (for personal use) is so huge right now that 6,000 lawsuits filed a year is not going to stop people from getting the music they want. They will always stay one step ahead of the industry.
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#20
I think some of this lawsuit is a bit misunderstood... apparently they are saying that the songs he ripped ARE illegal copies, BUT they aren't suing him over those, just the illegal sharing part.

I'm sure if they get ballsy enough to sue someone for ripping CD's that eventually there will be a court decision saying ripping for private use to one MP3 player is acceptable fair use, just like they have ruled it is fair use to tape a show off TV for time shifting purposes... it is how technology is going... people used to record records to tape cause you can't listen to records while jogging or driving... now people listen to MP3 players, but the #1 way to buy music is on CD's --- so you convert them.

I'm also pretty sure that all the MP3 player makers (or at least the major ones) pay a fee to the RIAA on each player sold, just like XM does for units with recording capabilities which are supposed to cover the "royalties" for this secondary use of the RIAA's product.

They are pushing their luck going after consumers directly. Most people can get behind them going after the file sharing networks and companies that deal in illegal copies of stuff -- but, for better or worse, public opinion is against them, and one day when all of us dinosaurs who are still used to owning a physical copy of music disappear, they will really be in trouble.

Even now people are scratching their heads when they are saying when you buy a CD you don't own it, you simply own the rights to playback a transcription of an RIAA member's recording for your own private purpose. It's gotten to the point where you need to bring your lawyer with you to Best Buy.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,665
9,670
848
#21
well thats a perfect example, lets say i purchase a cd, then the cd breaks, since i purchased the rights to play the music that is on that cd they should replace the physical part of the recording...... back to i want all the money i spent on shitty cassette tapes back when i went out and bought the cd's to replace them.
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#22
well thats a perfect example, lets say i purchase a cd, then the cd breaks, since i purchased the rights to play the music that is on that cd they should replace the physical part of the recording...... back to i want all the money i spent on shitty cassette tapes back when i went out and bought the cd's to replace them.
Oh I'm sure there's wording in their "liscence" that says that you only have the right to it as long as the physical media lasts :icon_wink This is the RIAA I'm sure they've thought of that!
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,665
9,670
848
#23
Oh I'm sure there's wording in their "liscence" that says that you only have the right to it as long as the physical media lasts :icon_wink This is the RIAA I'm sure they've thought of that!
ok now here's another loop hole, what about all the used music stores around the world, the riaa isnt getting a cut from them are they? so lets say i want to sell a vanilla ice cd, when i sell that cd do i have to send a check to the riaa for the resale? and if i do have to send them a check, do i have to take into consideration the inflation or depreciation of the value of the cd? or in my case a cassette that doesn't play any more? and is all of this info on the liner notes in its entirety?
 
Jun 30, 2005
10,828
2,030
681
outsiddah Boston
#24
umm...so what kind of warranty are they offering for my cd's in the event they chip/scratch? If i cannot back it up, will they replace it for free?
 
Jul 13, 2006
12,836
1
0
Arkansas
#25
They have gone a bit far with this shit. When you buy an album/song then you buy the rights for that item for personal use. It doesn't matter what fucking format that it's on.

There is no law saying that you can't listen to the music you purchased anyway that you'd like. It's a license fee that you're paying for personal use.

FUCK EM! I very rarely buy CDs ever since I picked up XM radio. I have purchased MAYBE six CDs in the past four years. And three of them were used for video projects as temp music.

If they really want to go after people then they need to crack down on podcasts that everyone puts out because they haven't paid for those licenses to use the array of music that they put on their "shows."

That IS a violation of use but you don't see them going after podcasts. Just to give you an example. If I were to use even a fucking Beachboys song in a 30 second commercial spot to air in a small 80,000 person viewing area I'd have to pay BMI about $20,000 to use 30 seconds worth of song.