RIAA says it is illegal to transfer legally purchased CD music to computer

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

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

THE LISTENER

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

By Marc Fisher (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/marc+fisher/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page 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.

[Dave]

eff fights for your rights (http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing)

Please think about giving just $1 to the eff (https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DON_splash). Giving the cost of a CD would be even better. They have fun things to buy (https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce?store_id=2441&JServSessionIdr012=n7uxjkuhk1.app13b), too.

[Buzzetta]

There needs to be more things like this...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Album#Grey_Tuesday

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

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


They'd better send me a letter... I've been copying music I paid for into alternate formats to make listening easier since I was about... 7? 8, Maybe? Granted, back then I put the 7" on my little record player and held my little sister's Fisher Price Tape recorder up the to speaker, but I am a vile criminal and must be held accountable.

[dunya]

This is interesting.Thanks for keeping us up-to date on the latest news.

[Buzzetta]

RIAA can kiss me white italian american ass if they think that if I am going to take the time and money to buy a CD that I am not going to put it on my iPod.

There are several reasons that they would want to do this-
(wish I could make the list that NRITH made)

1 - It would phase out the CD since digital format looks to be the future.
2 - With the CD phased out they get more of a profit as there is no packaging or hard copies and all they have to maintain is bandwidth.
3 - With a phased out CD they make it easier for courts to realize the importance of "protected" files.
4 - To stick it to Apple who the RIAA now looks at as their downfall - no longer napster.

Case in point - Sony finally relented and is releasing all music in non protected digital format online in all venues except at iTunes in what the industry calls is simply to stick it to Steve Jobs for being right.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

RIAA can kiss me white italian american ass if they think that if I am going to take the time and money to buy a CD that I am not going to put it on my iPod.

There are several reasons that they would want to do this-
(wish I could make the list that NRITH made)

1 - It would phase out the CD since digital format looks to be the future.
2 - With the CD phased out they get more of a profit as there is no packaging or hard copies and all they have to maintain is bandwidth.
3 - With a phased out CD they make it easier for courts to realize the importance of "protected" files.
4 - To stick it to Apple who the RIAA now looks at as their downfall - no longer napster.

Case in point - Sony finally relented and is releasing all music in non protected digital format online in all venues except at iTunes in what the industry calls is simply to stick it to Steve Jobs for being right.

Good- I freaking hate iTunes. I have to use it to manage my iPod, of course, but I still buy any downloads via Napster and convert them using third-party conversion software I bought.

[Buzzetta]

I'm all about iTunes there... I eat it up with a spoon.

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

So anyone who copies a CD to their MP3 player is now breaking the law! Cools - we are aLL criminals! He He ;)

[Buzzetta]

So anyone who copies a CD to their MP3 player is now breaking the law! Cools - we are aLL criminals! He He ;)

Update: The cunucks want to seize your iPod.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=canada+seize+ipods&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[bysshe]

That's bullshit.

[Dave]

eff fights for your rights (http://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing)

Please think about giving just $1 to the eff (https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DON_splash). Giving the cost of a CD would be even better. They have fun things to buy (https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce?store_id=2441&JServSessionIdr012=n7uxjkuhk1.app13b), too.

also, canada is stupid. did you know that they threatened people that released the names of the Camrose Cat Killers? These teens broke into a neighbors house and part of what they did was to torture their cat. They did something really terrible to the cat and then placed a sign telling the people where to find it.
Local people posted the names of the teens that did this on their own livejournals and the Canadian police came and made them delete the information from the Internet.

The names are

* Sam Sheppard
* Jordan Ryans
* Mac Ryans
* Jesse Gillis

[Cassius]

also, canada is stupid. did you know that they threatened people that released the names of the Camrose Cat Killers? These teens broke into a neighbors house and part of what they did was to torture their cat. They did something really terrible to the cat and then placed a sign telling the people where to find it.
Local people posted the names of the teens that did this on their own livejournals and the Canadian police came and made them delete the information from the Internet.

The names are

* Sam Sheppard
* Jordan Ryans
* Mac Ryans
* Jesse Gillis

Were they proven guilty?

[Buzzetta]

also, canada is stupid. did you know that they threatened people that released the names of the Camrose Cat Killers? These teens broke into a neighbors house and part of what they did was to torture their cat. They did something really terrible to the cat and then placed a sign telling the people where to find it.
Local people posted the names of the teens that did this on their own livejournals and the Canadian police came and made them delete the information from the Internet.

The names are

* Sam Sheppard
* Jordan Ryans
* Mac Ryans
* Jesse Gillis

The guy from "The Right Stuff" Killed cats?

However the authorities of Canada have a point. If the law prescribes that their names are withheld from the public domain due to their age it is not up to local residents to advertise their names thus breaking the law and the legal decision no matter how heinous the crime. There are murders committed by those that are underage and their names are not distributed to the public for the same reasons.

I have diminished respect for Canada for the sole reason that they allow Quebec City to get away with what they do.

[Dow Jones]

also, canada is stupid.Don't be dissin' America's hat.

[Buzzetta]

Don't be dissin' America's hat.

I lol'd :D

[Dave]

The guy from "The Right Stuff" Killed cats?

However the authorities of Canada have a point. If the law prescribes that their names are withheld from the public domain due to their age it is not up to local residents to advertise their names thus breaking the law and the legal decision no matter how heinous the crime. There are murders committed by those that are underage and their names are not distributed to the public for the same reasons.

I have diminished respect for Canada for the sole reason that they allow Quebec City to get away with what they do.

They have a point, but it's interesting because it involves information published online. I don't believe that I am subject to Canadian law by repeating it. Of course the original posters were Canadian citizens. I don't think it's relevant legally but this was discussed in Canadian newspapers and they thought that publishing the names was an overreaction to the crime. I disagree. I think that threatening the boys or physically harming them would be overreacting, but we post the names of other types of criminals.

In my town this 14 year old boy killed a woman while robbing her store and his name and photo were published. Sex offenders have their names and pictures published online.

I just don't know, when you're dealing with a "world wide web" if the laws of one country can be enforced? The other side of the coin is that something legal in any country would be legal in every country and this obviously is not true.

Besides the legal questions, which probably boil down to Canada having jurisdiction over events that begin in Canada, it's sort of sickening that innocent people that didn't believe the boys should get away with this were threatened, with Canadian police actually coming to their homes and making them delete what they had published online. The way I read it, it sounded not like they were given a court order, but that the police sat there while the person logged into their account and deleted their entry. And this is because something might happen to these sick kids that really need help. Serial killers often start out torturing animals, it's been repeated often.

If it said, "here's the name, here's the picture, here's where they live, we're going to get them" or something like that, it would be different, but it was just the names of criminals. The names didn't come from police files, they were known because the people that published them knew the people involved. I can see that you couldn't publish confidential files, but if I know my neighbor shot someone, and the police have him in custody for it, I don't know why I can't write it.

I honestly think it's Canada's twisted way of being "progressive".

[SNS22]

Laws protecting minors who commit crimes are ridiculous. Unless they're retarded, they know damn well what they're doing and they know it's wrong. They just don't care. Society has gone down the tubes, and we just slap these kids on the wrist and the age of criminals just keeps getting younger and younger.

The Feds would rather deal with people who "share" music they legally paid for :rolleyes:

[Buzzetta]

They have a point, but it's interesting because it involves information published online. I don't believe that I am subject to Canadian law by repeating it. Of course the original posters were Canadian citizens. I don't think it's relevant legally but this was discussed in Canadian newspapers and they thought that publishing the names was an overreaction to the crime. I disagree. I think that threatening the boys or physically harming them would be overreacting, but we post the names of other types of criminals.

In my town this 14 year old boy killed a woman while robbing her store and his name and photo were published. Sex offenders have their names and pictures published online.

I just don't know, when you're dealing with a "world wide web" if the laws of one country can be enforced? The other side of the coin is that something legal in any country would be legal in every country and this obviously is not true.

Besides the legal questions, which probably boil down to Canada having jurisdiction over events that begin in Canada, it's sort of sickening that innocent people that didn't believe the boys should get away with this were threatened, with Canadian police actually coming to their homes and making them delete what they had published online. The way I read it, it sounded not like they were given a court order, but that the police sat there while the person logged into their account and deleted their entry. And this is because something might happen to these sick kids that really need help. Serial killers often start out torturing animals, it's been repeated often.

If it said, "here's the name, here's the picture, here's where they live, we're going to get them" or something like that, it would be different, but it was just the names of criminals. The names didn't come from police files, they were known because the people that published them knew the people involved. I can see that you couldn't publish confidential files, but if I know my neighbor shot someone, and the police have him in custody for it, I don't know why I can't write it.

I honestly think it's Canada's twisted way of being "progressive".

First of all I laugh at attempts to shut down Pirate Bay torrent site. They even document their complaints http://thepiratebay.org/legal

in California the boy may have been charged as an adult which would have done away with the disclosure of his information.

Also before Megan's Law which I believe originated in your state "alleged" sex offenders successfully sued for slander and defamation in Civil Courts because in some cases their court files were sealed in Criminal Courts in order to protect the victims. Stupid at the time (hence the creation of Megan's Law) but still legal. (At that time.) However when neighbors were posting information the released criminal was allowed to sue due to a lack of tangible evidence in order to support the claims. Since all documentation regarding conviction and sentencing would have been sealed it was a slam dunk for the sex offender to sue for defamation.

Twisted and unfair but... it happened.

Look at it this way in your case... you know that Canada will never seek extradition.

Blame Canada
6uh5KbIOmQg

[Buzzetta]

Laws protecting minors who commit crimes are ridiculous. Unless they're retarded, they know damn well what they're doing and they know it's wrong. They just don't care. Society has gone down the tubes, and we just slap these kids on the wrist and the age of criminals just keeps getting younger and younger.

The Feds would rather deal with people who "share" music they legally paid for :rolleyes:

"Retarded" is acceptable again around these parts? :clap:

[Dave]

"Retarded" is acceptable again around these parts? :clap:

Ummmm, I think he's using it pretty much correctly there. I mean, even though the phrase itself is being phased out, it has more and less proper uses. Some criminals actually are mentally retarded and they get executed in Texas anyway.

[SNS22]

First of all I laugh at attempts to shut down Pirate Bay torrent site. They even document their complaints http://thepiratebay.org/legal

in California the boy may have been charged as an adult which would have done away with the disclosure of his information.

Also before Megan's Law which I believe originated in your state "alleged" sex offenders successfully sued for slander and defamation in Civil Courts because in some cases their court files were sealed in Criminal Courts in order to protect the victims. Stupid at the time (hence the creation of Megan's Law) but still legal. (At that time.) However when neighbors were posting information the released criminal was allowed to sue due to a lack of tangible evidence in order to support the claims. Since all documentation regarding conviction and sentencing would have been sealed it was a slam dunk for the sex offender to sue for defamation.

Twisted and unfair but... it happened.

Look at it this way in your case... you know that Canada will never seek extradition.

Blame Canada
6uh5KbIOmQg

You read my mind. I was just thinking about South Park.

[Dave]

Were they proven guilty?

they wound up pleading guilty. they were 16 and 17 at the time. it says "two" so I don't know what happened to the other two.

they are still not releasing the names so the question of their guilt isn't the concern, it's that people were outraged by what they did, and Canada felt they should be protected, and the reason given is their age. I guess if they'd been 18 we'd have seen if their age was the reason.

[SNS22]

"Retarded" is acceptable again around these parts? :clap:

If we can call someone that is stupid "gay", we can sure as hell call them retarded.

[Dave]

If we can call someone that is stupid "gay", we can sure as hell call them retarded.

yeah, but that's pretty stupid, isn't it?

[SNS22]

yeah, but that's pretty stupid, isn't it?

No, it's retarded. :p

I use Retarded for sarcasm, and never to refer to anyone who has a disability.

[Dave]

No, it's retarded. :p

I use Retarded for sarcasm, and never to refer to anyone who has a disability.

The thing is there's really no reason to do that and when people use words like that it doesn't indicate that they are a person you would take seriously. And since "seriously" is your favorite word ;) it's something to consider.

[SNS22]

The thing is there's really no reason to do that and when people use words like that it doesn't indicate that they are a person you would take seriously. And since "seriously" is your favorite word ;) it's something to consider.

That will make it more difficult to convey my sarcasm, but if the word offends people, then I refrain from using it.

[Dave]

it's not my intention to censor you.

[SNS22]

it's not my intention to censor you.

I know Dave. But I do respect your opinion....

for some reason.