JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Download Uproar - The legal battles rage on!

Posted for comments & discussion...
Two related stories:
12/30/07
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
12/31/07
Lawyer: Ripping MP3s Illegal, Grounds for Lawsuit
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319276,00.html

Some quotes...
A new twist:
The industry [now] maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer. The industry's lawyer, Ira Schwartz, argues that MP3 files on our computers made from legally purchased CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

Recently, the industry [RIAA] 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.

Out with the Old, in with the New...
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 battle will rage on...
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.

Dinosaurs are ugly when they die, aren't they? And they can do a lot of damage while they're going, too.

Joe

Joe,
Yup!
Good sense of humor!

Michael

It makes mt grateful that I never ripped the tags off of the pillows. Ben

Oh-oh...

Well, there is a difference in making a copy for personal use and sharing that copy on the internet and those things need to be keep separate. I agree with the first, I disagree with the second, unless you own the copyright.

KAC

Kenny,
I totally agree. I think you hit the "nail" on the head on this issue!

A personal copy for my own use and maybe a family member (same household) should be totally cool, but anything beyond that will start encroaching on the rights of the original copyright owner unless they are using something like a "CC" (creative commons) license to give everyone the liberty to pass it around and share, but even then that doesn't apply to any commercial usage which would require a seperate license.

Regards,
Michael

I thought the copyright law allows for fair use, which means making a few copies for yourself, not to sell or even give away. Maybe a copy for home, one for the car and one for the cabin.

It certainly used to be the case (in the EU, anyway) that you could make a 'back-up' copy of a CD, as long as it was in the same format i.e. a CD. However, in the last few years the governments of several countries (especially the US) have enacted all sorts of laws relating to the ownership of music, and copyright in general, to the point where what's legal in Canada might cause you to have your assets seized in the US.

Essentially, the media conglomerates want us to pay for each different format, not for each piece of work. So if you want an MP3, you have to pay for it, even if you own the CD. This seems to be an over-reaction to the whole P2P debacle - and a great excuse to get people to pay for stuff twice (like so much else these days).

It has always been illegal to transfer a recording to another format and distribute it in any form - I think that even includes making a copy for the car and playing it where anybody else can hear it!

Much the same madness now exists with the situation in the UK where guitar shops cannot allow people to play copyrighted works to try out instruments unless they have a public performance licence. It's all about control and ownership - unless you're a nobody, in which case you have nothing to lose! (and no means of effective protection either!).

Dan

In the old days people bought LPs' took them home and stored them in a milk crate or a "Peaches" box. Today people buy CDs' and store them on their computer file or Ipod. The only difference is that the content is now taken out of the physical recording and copied to a file. If they pursue this, how will they differentiate the music copied from a CD and music that has been legally downloaded from Itunes? I think the RIAA is grasping at straws with this one. They may be cutting their own throat when some judge just says Enough! Ben

Then they should create a return policy once theres another storage format in the future. The main reason why we store the music in a hard drive for safety precaution because CD is not a good storage medium nowadays, it ate a lot of spaces in your living room, in your a car or in your backpack. Compare to minituarize mp3 player. Also record company do not offer a 6 month or 1 year warranty for mishandled music stored in the CD.

This is similar to a drowning person, he try to survive by pulling other people around him down to the bottom.

This is exactly what I am talking about in my thread in the general message forum. Ok fine I'll go home today and erase all the backed up files I have in 128 kilbits per second (not even truly a copy) And you know what else I'll do? I'll make my own damn music! (pardon my langauge but I'm pissed! I refuse to ever purchase a cd ever again I will encourage those I know not to buy cd's down with the music industry boo! hiss Boo! Now that I've got that off my chest Joe you crack me up thanks for giving me something to chuckle at while I fume!
Derek

I was listening yesterday to an NPR interview with an RIAA rep. He went to great lengths to stress that they have never once brought forth a case against someone who only ripped a CD for their own copy. The only cases they've pursued are against those who shared those copies.

When pressed by callers if they have permission to rip CDs, he evaded and evaded, saying all the possible scenarios are too individual for him to say one way or another.

What I gathered was that they do not intend to go as far as to litigate against simple copying...but they still want to hold that card, just in case. "Fair use" is not a term they are interested in clarifying.

Hummn,
I had a nice Cabinet made to store my LP Records and Reel to Reel Tapes. Damn! Outdated. I bought a nice Cabinet to store my CD'S. I tried to store them on top of my computer but they keep falling off. That how you do it? Ha, ha.

Maybe very early some CD'S may have failed but the first ones I ever bought, around 1987 still play perfectly. I doubt any currently manufactured CD'S will fail maybe in a hundred years.

From time to time I will order several CD'S that I want from a catalog.

There is nothing I want to download legally or ilegally.

The only reason I might copy a CD into my computer is to transfer it into some medium such as an iPod to play it in a remote location. So far I don't have an iPod and don't even know if I have software in my computer to record with.

I used to copy records to tape to prevent damaging the record and an easier format for listening. Aw for the good old days! Since there is no needle to damage a CD there is no reason to copy it to anything. Only if you want to take CD'S with you and don't want the original to be subject to theft.

I have hundreds of Cds that get scratched and broken. I have a handicapped son who throws them about like frisbees. I now take a copy on hard drive of every CD my family buys so that I can replace the broken ones. Please somebody explain why this is wrong. I completely agree that illegal downloading and copying for distribution is wrong and the people caught should be prosecuted. However if I buy a CD for my own personal use then surely I have purchased the right to play and store that music any way I want. It is time the powers that be clarified the situation with proper legislation with no ambiguity.
Any fool can tell the difference between piracy and backup for own personal use yet this so called grey area is the main reason why legislation has not reached statute. I also note that nobody seems to be busting a gut to prosecute the main ringleaders in illegal copying and distribution. I wonder why.

From the RIAA site: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law



I'd forgotten that part of the price of CD-R's goes to the RIAA!

Kevin

Thanks Kevin. Do they get royalties on hard drives as well because you need a hard drive to write onto first before you can burn a disc.

I think this part...extrapolated from the link in the preceding post...answers the question about burning a copy for yourself exclusively. Apparently you can make a CD-R copy or burn it to your hard drive, or load it on an MP3 player, as long as it is for personal use only, and not have to worry about them coming after you. Here's the extrapolated quote:

"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."

To me, that is fairly clear. You must first have paid for the original...then you can copy it to your hard drive, a CD-R or an MP3 player and be safe. It is only when you try to resell it or share it with others that it becomes a problem.

Al

Hi Al I just to throw a spanner into the works I think that legislation regarding this is different in the UK. I will check and get back.

Hi It would appear that I was right. It is illegal to copy a CD in any way shape or form according to this link. The BBC are seldom wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm

It is not illegal in the US.

I get CDs from the library. They lend CDs.

There it is! Sic 'em, RIAA!

Maybe but it sure is immoral according to some.

Big Jim you need to quit bouncing those CD'S off the walls. If you do and play them backwards you will get Satanic messages. Gadam you, Gadam you, Gadam you! Ouch!

Tried it backwards with heavy rock CDs guess what.... Christian Country

sheesh what a bummer.

Reason for edit this prob with site freezing over and generally not working properly has happened again. Must be a message from god.

Whom you don't believe in.LOL

Well, the original CDs are what I use for my backup.

The best songs have been imported into my iTunes and therefore reside in an uncompressed wav file format so I can burn a CDR for playing in my car. Gee, I hope the RIAA doesn't come after me.

I've never uploaded commercial stuff (that I didn't own) to any site or posted somewhere where others could download it.

That was an interesting point about libraries loaning out CDs. Technically, you should be able to LOAN a CD, just not copy it. Of course, who is to say what happens to that CD once it leaves the libary.

I believe library lending is exempted form certain parts of copyright law. Librarie fall under the "fair use" provisions.

If you read the RIAA page carefully, they said specifically that you have no legal "right" to make ANY copy, however, they said you would normally not get in trouble for making personal copies of CD-Rs. hard drives, and portable players.

I believe they are saying it is not legal, but we don't care as long as you don't share or distribute.

Ok Truman

After your little tirade on my post over on the general forum. It seems to you as long as its not stealing then its ok even if its technically illegal? Sorry but I consider that a total double standard. I know your argument is going to be that as long as its not distributed no one is hurt. Does that make it any less illegal? I guess the truth be told I am as guilty as anyone in this department as I have backed up music on my computer. However I'm not the one on a high horse about illegal downloads you are. So please explain to me how this makes a difference?
Derek

I fail to see what all the hooha is about. I think we all agree that we are aginst theft. We also agree that we do not want to see fellow musicians getting ripped off. Most would agree that people should be prosecuted for illegal copying. So what is the problem? In my opinion we should be shouting at the RIAA instead of each other.
They have not kept up with the times and seem unable to understand the legislation never mind pursue the violators.

Someone said the guy in this lawsuit was file-sharing through something called KAZAA ?????? If so, that's the line, and he crossed it. I noticed on a DVD FBI Warning it says any unauthorized copying is illegal.

I googled file sharing and millions of sites came up. Are all these sites illegal? How many people know the law, bearing in mind that different countries have different laws? Most folk are not clear whether they are breaking the law or not. Ignorance is no excuse....yeah right...we should be better informed as to what is/is not legal. All illegal sites should be closed down. Then we can start to worry about the lesser offenders.

Law is a funny thing. I usually drive at five miles over the speed limit. I've driven right past police cars sitting to the side of the road who are using radar, and have never been pulled over...except for once. I was driving a rented car, a white oldsmobile with Florida plates. It was the profile of a drug smuggler and they used the excuse of my going 64 in a 60mph zone to pull me over and get a better look.

I guess there's not a reasonable expectation that everyone can follow the speeding law right to the letter, combined with not enough resources to hold everyone to that letter. I also guess that allowing a little "leeway" gives the law an opportunity to use a minor infraction as a way to get persons of interest "in the system" or "off the street" the way the got Al Capone on tax charges, or in the way they checked on me.

There's also another angle to the law that I believe applies here. Lyle mentioned the RIAA rep who wouldn't, when pressed, say whether he thought it was ok for folks to rip songs for their personal use. If there was a groundswell on both sides for the law to be changed, the danger runs that the change might go "overboard" to the other side, not to mention that once the law is changed, folks on the "other side" would have momentum on their side and be looking to further changes. The politics of law is a "hard line" sport.

So I would imagine that what we consider "fair use" though illegal, may be tolerated, but if one depends on the tolerance of law enforcement entities, they run the risk of becoming a test case, an example, or a target for another offense, just like the risk I take when driving five miles over the limit. As Clint Eastwood said, "You feelin' lucky, punk?"

Yeah Mike it seems unfair that we motorists get persecuted for speeding a few miles over the limit and yet internet crooks are getting away with millions right in front of everyones eyes and nobody seems to care.

Unless we're going to arrest nearly every kid or owner of an iPod in the world, we're all tolerating theft because there are very few iPods in the world in use by kids who have little financial resources without at least something that isn't authorized. I doubt any kids with thousands of songs actually paid for many or any of them. But most of them fill up their ipods with music.

Brian

Just got this from Alan O'Day:

Hey music friends,


As you may be, I've been concerned about recent reports of extreme positions taken by the RIAA against music consumers.

Well, in at least one instance, the reports are wrong. I recently received this from Bart Herbison, of NSAI:

A recent story that appeared in the Tennessean newspaper and a number of other media outlets across the nation that suggesting that the RIAA was filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone for copying music from a CD they LEGALLY purchased to their computer for their own enjoyment. This story is misleading. The lawsuit actually seeks damages for DISTRIBUTING these songs on illegal peer-to-peer networks.

Below is a link to the original story, a clarification that appeared on cnet.com and a statement from RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol clarifying this important matter.

LINK TO ORIGINAL STORY:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712300419

LINK TO cnet.com story
http://www.news.com/8300-10784_3-7.html?authorId=116&tag=author


STATEMENT BY MITCH BAINWOL--CEO, RIAA
"The Washington Post story is wrong. As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an mp3 player is infringement.

"This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use. The characterization of the record companies' position in the case is simply incorrect, and appears to be based on distortions that have appeared in certain anti-industry blogs rather than in the record of the case itself."

Have a great New Year,

Alan

Brian,

Earlier in this thread, I had made pretty much the same statement. People need to look at what is actually being "said", rather than paraphrasing with a personal bias, whichever way their bias may be.

Al

Al,

I just wanted to post the official response to the misinformation that is raging out there.

Brian

Right Brian!
Hmmm... I don't know how reporters or other "industry experts" can get the story so easily confused or "misguided".

Let's read the news quote from the article again:

"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."

The keywords words are "SHARING ONLINE".

The lawsuit wasn't about copying 24 songs from CDs to a personal computer, though that would be a necessary step in the process of making it available to be uploaded to a file sharing site. Once you share things online, especially out on the "open" internet (i.e. file sharing sites or illegal copies on MySpace, etc.), that's sharing and these days "sharing" anything online is about the same is distribution. Of course sharing copyrighted material will always be a copyright violation not to mention unauthorized and illegal duplication and distribution, even if no direct sales or profits are involved.

This problem can be summed up in 4 keywords:
ILLEGAL ONLINE SHARING and DISTRIBUTION.

The difference between Legal and Illegal should be as easy to differentiate as Black and White. The less "gray" areas the better, and that's the job of the law, ethics, morality and education.

Michael

Just read this at another forum today -- from a college student who had a lot of homework to do. So instead, he:

I guess there is a big problem out there.

Kevin