Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[CovenantJr]

Malik, I understand and agree with a chunk of what you say. HOWever, this is a complicated subject, as I'm sure you will not disagree with me. So with that - what about mix tapes? Were we evil and wrong back in the day? Sure, recording off in tape form whole albums were probably wrong for friends, but what about mix tapes? Seems to be the same thing, yah?

For that matter, what about making tapes by recording off the radio station? What is that considered?

Tricky bidnuss, this.

I always assumed mix tapes and radio recording were illegal. Didn't stop me doing it, but that was my assumption.

Stopping people making digital copies for their own personal use on iPod or computer seems heavy-handed and unreasonable. Stopping people making copies for distribution or sharing seems quite reasonable. Personally, I see it much the same way I see speeding: If I do it, I know the risks and can't really justify complaining if I get caught. Many people do complain at being fined for speeding, though, and I expect the same of music pirates. Abdication of responsibility is the name of the game.

[Loredoctor]

But the spirit of the law is sound: it SHOULD be illegal to download copyrighted intellectual property. I don't understand why people think this is no big deal. Imagine if the audio version of Fatal Revenant was downloaded by millions for free, instead of actually buying the book, and then Donaldson's sales were so poor that the 3rd and 4th books weren't even allowed to the market.

Stealing is stealing. We like to think of the "Big Record Companies" as the enemy, but ultimately the artists suffer. Sure, artists can "do a Radiohead." But only if they are famous enough to make this a viable option to begin with. If you're a garage band, no matter how good (or bad) you are, you're not going to be successful by offering your stuff for free online. Just like any loser with a couple thousand can self-publish his book--it doesn't mean you'll get read . . .

But you shouldn't be able to share that music with millions of freeloaders. That is what it appears the woman is being charged with, not singing in the shower or sharing it with her husband. The fact that you guys can joke about this just how little distinction you make between legally supporting an artist, and ripping them off.

I agree 100%. An excellent post, Malik23.

[onewyteduck]

Or, like the latest Eagles release, 2 CDs full of shitty songs (go back into retirement guys.)

Then it wasn't just me!

[balon!]

I feel inbetween. My thinking is that this is a situation that varies depending on level of involvement and excess of the actually "breaking" of the Law.

I would feel more in the grey area, rather than the black, if I downloaded a song illegally that was normally impossible to find. For example, I really love the music from the game "The Neverhood." They released an album, but it was back in the early nineties and, even then, it wasn't mass. The only place I could find it for less than a few hundred bucks for the entire album is online. I wouldn't feel in the wrong downloading it, because it's not feasible for me to find it any other way.

On the other hand, if I uploaded ALL the albums I own, and then allowed them to be downloaded by anyone on the internet, I feel I should be punished. I am blatantly and maliciously screwing the artists out of their due payments.

[sgt.null]

mixtapes should not be illegal. it is free adverting for the bands involved. and damn it, i bought the album.

[wayfriend]

and damn it, i bought the album.

Nope. You have bought a lease which grants you a license to use your album in certain ways. Cool, huh?

[onewyteduck]

Washington Post sticks by RIAA story despite evidence it goofed
Posted by Greg Sandoval

It's late on Wednesday evening and the Washington Post has yet to correct a story that accused the recording industry of trying to paint law-abiding music fans as criminals.

But the paper should make things right and soon.

Marc Fisher, a Post columnist, wrote on Sunday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserted in a legal brief that anyone who copies music from a CD onto their computer is a thief. The document, filed last month, was part of the RIAA's copyright suit against Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona resident accused of illegal file sharing.

Quoting from the brief, Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law. If it were true, the move would represent a major shift in strategy by the RIAA, which typically hasn't challenged an individual's right to copy CDs for personal use.

The problem with Fisher's story is that nowhere in the RIAA's brief does the group call someone a criminal for simply copying music to a computer. Throughout the 21-page brief, the recording industry defines what it considers to be illegal behavior and it boils down to this: creating digital recordings from CDs and then uploading them to file-sharing networks.

A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

"Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."
--Marc Fisher, columnistThe key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

The Post story, which followed similar pieces in Ars Technica and Wired.com, has spurred scores of other media outlets to repeat the paper's erroneous assertion. Ironically, even typically anti-RIAA blogs, such as Engadget, Gizmodo and TechDirt have jumped in on the side of the RIAA.

"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "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."

After reading Lamy's statement, Fisher didn't back down.

He responded in an e-mail to CNET News.com: "The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."

He took one more shot before signing off: "Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."

Still, Fisher received little support from respected and independent copyright experts. William Patry, the copyright guru at Google--not exactly known as a lackey for copyright holders--wrote on his blog that the RIAA is being "unfairly maligned" in the Post story.

Patry does, however, caution that recent statements made by the RIAA and included in Fisher's story reflect the group's growing tendency to use language as a means of control.

Fisher quoted Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, who testified recently in court that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

Patry disagreed.

"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839170-7.htm ... 47-1_3-0-5

[The Laughing Man]

two issues:

1) those lawyers do not parse words. If they said that "making a copy" is illegal, then thats exactly what they meant.

2) there's a big push with people and new technology to share their media on one central server, in a shared folder, which can then be distributed to every pc and digital media device in their house that has access to the network. simply accessing that file requires a copy to be made on the accessing device. if they say a "shared folder" is illegal, then that ability and trend is also now in jeopardy, and the looming monster that goes with it is your going to have to pay to listen to a cd that someone else in your house purchased. or purchase a license for each individual attending one of your parties that just happens to be listening to a song they haven't purchased. The "unauthorized and illegal copy" is in your ear, isn't it?

[sgt.null]

and damn it, i bought the album.

Nope. You have bought a lease which grants you a license to use your album in certain ways. Cool, huh?

no. i bought something. it is mine. i did not sign a contract. the record company did not spell out what it expected me to do with my property. so i can damn well send mix tapes to whoever i want. where is this use spelled out?

[CovenantJr]

and damn it, i bought the album.

Nope. You have bought a lease which grants you a license to use your album in certain ways. Cool, huh?

no. i bought something. it is mine. i did not sign a contract.

You bought the physical object and can do with that physical object whatever you please. You did not, however, buy the contents. It's basic copyright law; the creator owns the creation, and nothing can be done with that creation without his/her permission. When a publisher publishes a novel (or story, poem, etc), the author signs a contract granting that publisher permission to reproduce the material in a specified format, within defined parameters. The same applies to music. If you want to copy and distribute music, you need to get the creator of that music to sign a contract granting you permission, because they own it.*

Furthermore, your implication, Sergeant, that the artist should be glad of your unauthorised distribution of their work as 'free publicity' seems to overlook the simple fact that by providing free copies, you are preventing the artist earning a reward for their hard work. The 'publicity' gains them nothing; it discourages purchase of their product rather than promoting it.

the record company did not spell out what it expected me to do with my property. so i can damn well send mix tapes to whoever i want. where is this use spelled out?

Do people need to walk around wearing shirts that say 'don't kill me' across the chest in order for you to know not to commit murder? Of course not. Do items in shops have to bear little 'don't steal me' stickers before you'll consent to pay for them? Again, of course not. By the same token, it's ridiculous to claim that you're justified in copying someone else's work (music, writing, art, whatever) if that work doesn't have a 'don't copy me' warning on it. But in any case, there are copyright details on all CDs, telling you who owns the contents and what you're not allowed to do with them. You insist on having your rights (or lack thereof) to copy/distribute the contents of the CD spelled out for you on the product itself? They are. Go and have a look.







*It is, of course, more complicated than that, but this is the basic principle.

[matrixman]

"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."

Words I will think about. Thank you, Mr. Patry.

[sgt.null]

cov jr: i didn't steal the tape/cd/record. is it unlawful for me to loan my books out? isn't that preventing someone from buying that book?

my hopes with the mixes is that you run out and buy the artist's works. just like if you hear the song on the radio. i'm just saving you the commercials and crappy songs.

[balon!]

cov jr: i didn't steal the tape/cd/record. is it unlawful for me to loan my books out? isn't that preventing someone from buying that book?

If you were to copy that book, and then give that copy to a friend, yes. It would be.

[sgt.null]

cov jr: i didn't steal the tape/cd/record. is it unlawful for me to loan my books out? isn't that preventing someone from buying that book?

If you were to copy that book, and then give that copy to a friend, yes. It would be.

but the book itself wouldn't be? but didn't i give it away? so we are being prosecuted because of technology?

[CovenantJr]

cov jr: i didn't steal the tape/cd/record. is it unlawful for me to loan my books out? isn't that preventing someone from buying that book?

That is simply moving one legitimate copy around. It's not preventing anyone buying the book/CD, unless they copy it for themselves before they give it back. If someone borrows a CD from you, when they give it back they have no choice but to buy it if they want to listen to it again. If, however, you make a copy for them, they don't have to buy one. Lending harms no-one; copying harms the artist, potentially putting them out of business. I don't understand how anyone can fail to see that by copying music they are potentially contributing to an early end to that artist's career. High copying = poor sales = dropped by the label. Game over.

I'm not saying I haven't, don't or won't copy CDs or make mix tapes. I have, do and will again - but I have no illusions about what I'm doing. In the unlikely event that anyone were to publish a novel of mine, I think I would be justified in not wanting people to make crappy photocopies of it for distribution to friends and random strangers.

cov jr: i didn't steal the tape/cd/record. is it unlawful for me to loan my books out? isn't that preventing someone from buying that book?

If you were to copy that book, and then give that copy to a friend, yes. It would be.

but the book itself wouldn't be? but didn't i give it away? so we are being prosecuted because of technology?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. No-one is prosecuting anyone for possessing the means to copy music; 'we' are being prosecuted for what we choose to do with the technology at our disposal. At the most basic level, it's the same as forging currency, I suppose. Giving someone money isn't a problem, but making copies of your money is.

Besides, technology doesn't strictly come into it, in principle at least. If someone laboriously copied out the text of an entire book by hand and then gave it to friend, that would be just as illegal as making a photocopy of it, or making a mix tape.

Again, I'm not telling you not to make mix tapes or copy CDs if you're so inclined; I'm just asking that you don't insult the artists and make yourself look like an idiot by claiming you have a legal right to do so.

[sgt.null]

i am an idiot because i do what i please with my own property?

[Loredoctor]

i am an idiot because i do what i please with my own property?

You don't own the rights to the music - the artist does. The artist, within his or her rights, involves the purchaser in a contract where the music can be listened to but not copied. Would you like someone to copy your work in such a way that you don't make money? One person doing it is not good - when millions doing so and you don't get to profit from your work, it's really a crime.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

It's more a matter of scale, I think. You aren't likely to get sued for making a mix tape, or even emailing a few MP3 files (which you ripped from the CD you purchased) to a friend.
Legally, however, the argument is the same, copyright infringement, as if you had opened your entire media library to a file-sharing program that can automatically share tens, hundreds, thousands, millions of copies of those same MP3's to anyone who sees something they want in a share directory.
These are all examples of infringement of copyright - despite the fact that the mix tape is relatively harmless, and sometimes even works as an ad for the artist. I'd assume the artists and the RIAA are much more concerned with mass copying of digital media (which is a near-to-perfect replication of the original), than the occasional MP3 or mix tape. However, their practices seem to make no distinction of scale.

I don't have a problem with trying to protect copyright. But the real problem with the RIAA and the DMCA is the self-interest evil stuff that comes with it - the RIAA apparently prefers to have the ability to trample basic liberties and constitutional rights so they can more easily prove mass infringement cases, and they don't care how many customers they alienate or prosecute to prove to the pirates that their money is their money, and no one else can have it. They comfort themselves with the thought that they wouldn't abuse such power if it was given to them - because they are just good people trying to protect their artists and profits, right?
Remember the Sony snafu many moons ago, where they got caught slipping digital rights protection software autoloads onto their music label CDs. That's the kind of self-interest evil I'm talking about.

Then there are the companies that are already (ab)using the DMCA to protect their intellectual property in heavy-handed, monopolistic ways - simply because they can. The DMCA doesn't do a good job of limiting itself - thus it is easily abused by any corporate media attorney with half a brain that also doesn't mind (or does not fashion himself as) being evil.

dw

[sgt.null]

i have a problem with a record company insisting they still own something i purchased.

and these are record companies that exist due to their abuse of their artists. the artists that they claim to protect.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

On the one hand, I agree with you - it's your CD, and you should be able to use it however you choose. And for the most part, they usually will let you - unless they have decided to make an example out of you because they can prove that you are making digital copies that a lot of other people have access to without having to pay (the RIAA) for them.

It's exactly the same if you go out and buy a DVD movie. You don't own the rights to the movie, just the media on which your copy of the movie has been burned, along with the right to as many home usage viewings as you want. The screen at the beginning of the movie tells you you do not have the right to profit from showing your copy of the movie, or to make any copies of that copy, as this would infringe on the producers/artists ability to make money off selling future copies, since they are the copyright holders.
Traditionally, they haven't minded much if you chose to rip a copy of the DVD to your hard drive, so long as it is only and always for your own personal use (and by logical assumption, a reasnable number of others in your household). Practically speaking, there is nothing to stop you from sharing the physical media with friends or others who never bought a copy.
Though this violates the intent of the copyright, it probably also won't get you noticed unless you start publicly charging for (and thus profiting from) the lending.
It's the free infinite digital upload/download that the RIAA and the movie follks are scared of, because this digital sharing/theft it can and has torn a large hole in their sales figures- if anyone can download it for free from the internet, with no consequences, why pay $15-20 for it?

The question is - how do you protect the artists/producers from rampant illegal sharing/pirating, without resorting to technologically or legally Draconian practices that make it prohibitively expensive or unwieldy to use the digital medium that is so obviously and inexorably replacing physical media?

dw