[jkelly]

...says the latest lawsuit from the RIAA.  The industry maintains that
it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that
music into his computer.

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

This will turn out to be a landmark case.

*** Please note that the thread has pointed out that the issue may not
be as reported by the press but that the defendant ripped these mp3's to a shared kazaa folder.
TBD - Jeff

[pbrstreetgang]

There is little use for record companies anymore. Artists should get smart and use the itunes, amazons and many others to sell their music in all the formats and keep the money for themselves. People are on the net the buying public is there and the record companies use of negotiating distributorship and promotion of the artists is near useless. with the crap compression, quality, and hands in the artists pockets I cant wait till they are broke.

[JoshK]

Any lawyers here?  So are they trying to overturn the fair use doctrine?    It seems as this is implying that making a copy of your own CD is illegal.  So anyone who makes a CD copy of their LP is committing a crime?  Making a cassette for your car of your CD is illegal, making mp3s of your CDs for your Ipod is illegal?  Give me a break. 

[Scott F.]

It truly is unfortunate that even a major newspaper can't get the story correct. I think it was Boing Boing who broke this story a few weeks ago.

I took some time and read the entire legal brief and this is what I took away from it....link to my previous post on this story in Boing Boing.

I've got no doubt that the RIAA has their sights set on everybody that buys a CD. They seem to think that we are all thieves. The trouble is, they are focusing on the wrong people. All you have to do is surf over to the RIAA or the IFPI (the international arm of the RIAA) website to see where the real problem of counterfeitting and piracy lies in these countries (according to the IFPI)......

PRIORITY COUNTRIES
Brazil
Canada
China
Greece
Indonesia
Italy
Mexico
Russia
South Korea
Spain

SPECIAL FOCUS COUNTRIES
Bulgaria
Pakistan
Taiwan
Ukraine

Here is a link to the IFPI PDF report on 2006 piracy

This isn't to say that it doesn't happen here in the States but those countries listed above are the real problem. So what does the RIAA do instead? Sue the shit out of who they can get their hands on, the American public.



Going back to the story in the Post, aren't major newspapers supposed to fact check their stories before they get published?  I'm definitely not a hard news reporter and I'm barely a writer but at least I read the legal brief before I commented on it. 

[jkelly]

Thank you for that post and sorry for the repost.
I just did a quick read on the brief and it seems to indicate
that the mp3 copies became unauthorized when the defendant
placed them in the shared (kazaa) folder.

Does that sound right?

[Scott F.]

No worries about the repost. It seems the Washington Post writer just re-reported a story from AOL or Boing Boing without doing his homework (or having an editor check his sources).

That's the same conclusion I came to also (the Kazaa folder thing).

I've got no doubt that if the RIAA had their way with us, they would charge us for each time we listened to a song.

[zako]

Go get them RIAA !!!!  I warned this forum a couple of years ago that the RIAA would persue every avenue possible. This is a grey area,, but the RIAA has the deep pockets To intimedate where possible.

[AB]

I just read the Wash Post article. It's not long.
Here are some quotes;

"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.

And

"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."

And

"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."

Nothing there about distributing those copies...

and

"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.

Copying a song "for himself" is  - in their minds - "stealing"

Seems to me the OP got it right.

[lonewolfny42]

I think their going to start "rounding up" all the SB owners soon.....

(OK.....I'm joking.... )

[Scott F.]

Seems to me the OP got it right.

AB,

Go back to the link I posted previously. Follow it back to the original legal brief. Give it a read (its quite long). When you get to the end, you'll realize that the WP (plus Boing Boing and AOL) did not get it right. Just because the Post wrote it, does not make it correct.

Quoting the WP article.....The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal.

After you read the brief, that statement is completely incorrect. Howell copied a CD to his Kazaa folder and shared it with other Kazaa users. When he was issued an order to stop and leave his computer unaltered as it was now concidered evidence in a civil suit, he proceeded to erase the hard drive. The confusing part about reading the legal brief is that he and his wife bought music and ripped it to their drive for personal use. What got him in trouble was he ripped it to a Kazaa shared folder that was connected to the world. It seems none of the "news agencies" can read a legal brief and get a story correct.

As for BMG's legal council stating ".....I suppose....", it is just that, supposition, not law (even though they would like it to be that way).

Trust me, I hold as much contempt for the RIAA as I do personal injury lawyers but in this case, Howell was the one who screwed the pooch.


Wolfy...lets see....over 5k songs at $9250 per song.....geeez, I don't think my calculator has that many decimal places.

[mjosef]

What I don't get is...how do they identify the people that got 'copies' on their computer? Are their buddies ratting them out and collecting some reward... 

[Don_S]

Scott F.  Thank you for the clarification.  The ramifications are certainly different when the "kazaa connection" is considered.  Otherwise everybody setting up their own computer-based server or using one from Olive, Escient, Cambridge, etc is a felon.

I would think that fact is important enough the press would not only get it correct but emphasize it as well.  Apparently that is too much to expect. They should be 

[Jim N.]

That (shared folder) is a crucial point. I have no problem with people who share files getting hauled into court. Most of us rag on the RIAA but it's the people who think that they should get music for nothing that are the real problem. Sue the bejabbers out of the freeloaders! I believe people should be paid for their work.

I do rip my own discs but I buy CD's as the source files. I keep my CD's after I rip them and do not share them. I work in IT and we keep all program CD's for the apps on our networks so I am used to doing it. I can't see the act of ripping your CD's ever becoming criminalized in itself (unless the whores in Congress get even greedier  ). It's the sharing, and that should include selling CD's whose files you have copied, that is the problem.

The RIAA is fighting a very stubborn mentatlity, that many believe stealing is OK simply because they can do it. The RIAA actions often seem draconian and even absurd. It would be a much better world if people did not steal but they do and this stuff is the result.

And, yes, it would have been nice had the media gotten the story straight but it would not have been as sensational or generated as many hits.

[Scott F.]

What I don't get is...how do they identify the people that got 'copies' on their computer? Are their buddies ratting them out and collecting some reward... 

Apparently the RIAA surfs all of the P2P websites and documents any users and files they have placed in their Kazaa (or other shared) folders. Once they find those users they begin recording any web traffic (downloads) from that shared folder. After they see illegal activity, they approach the internet provider of the offender and subpoena them to get the offenders name and address. Then they swoop in.

I know of people who use the bit torrent websites to download television shows and movies. With the RIAA actions, I've got to believe that the MPAA is gearing up to go after those people.

[AB]

I can imagine the WaPo getting the story wrong but I don't that's the case here.

I think the gist of the story here is this;

"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."

Is this not what the RIAA is arguing (within the more precise argument and context of sharing)?

Jeff Howell placed the files in his "Shared" file. That's one part of their argument but they are also arguing (according to the defendants lawyer) that simply copying files to your computer "is a violation".

The lawyers belief is backed up by the RIAA's own website with its comment "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."

There's nothing in that statement about sharing.

The web site then goes on with a softer threat - "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.

And BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified "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.

Seems Sony BMG wants the court to equate copying with stealing.

The WaPo article is not about the illegality of sharing copyrighted files it's about the RIAA's attempts to have the simple (and currently legal) act of copying copyrighted files considered illegal in court.

[Scott F.]

I see what you are saying but I still disagree to a certain extent. Thats OK though as nothing the RIAA does would surprise me. Lets all pray that at some point in the future the RIAA doesn't refer back to previous case finding and pull out one of those stronger statements (even though it isn't law) and twist it into actually being an interpretation of law. I've got no doubt they will try at some point.

As I stated earlier, those greedy f*cks won't be happy until we are all paying each time we listen to a song. It's not the artists that are pushing this, its the CEO's wanting a bigger bottom line. Its all about the price per share and their personal (and collective) administrative compensations.

[Bigfish]

If the courts rule in favor of the music industry what would this mean for the owners of MP3s and IPods?  How would you prove that you paid for the music on your personal device? 

I understand the music industry going after people that illegally share music over the internet or illegally sell CDs. I really think they should go after these people.  However, I believe there is no chance that law forces will designate much of time fighting petty crime, on an individual basis for copying to a hard drive or to an IPod.  What percentage of the music listening public would be guilty?  My guess is that at least 50% of those currently listening to music have copied their own cds to a hard drive and or to a IPod.

Ken

[AB]

I see what you are saying but I still disagree to a certain extent. Thats OK though as nothing the RIAA does would surprise me. Lets all pray that at some point in the future the RIAA doesn't refer back to previous case finding and pull out one of those stronger statements (even though it isn't law) and twist it into actually being an interpretation of law. I've got no doubt they will try at some point.

As I stated earlier, those greedy f*cks won't be happy until we are all paying each time we listen to a song. It's not the artists that are pushing this, its the CEO's wanting a bigger bottom line. Its all about the price per share and their personal (and collective) administrative compensations.

I agree. The RIAA is nefarious and these attempts to work their interpretation of copyright law into precedent won't stop anytime soon.

As for the WaPo article, I think the callout showing the suit against Jammie Thomas serves only to confuse the point (or at least what I think is the point  ) of the main article.

I suspect the next step for the RIAA is and attempt to divide and redefine "Fair Use" to exclude music. Their thrust will most likely be that Fair Use really was only intended to deal with the printed word and analog reproductions of all things non word. They probably won't go the straight forward way and use the legislative route but use case law like they are trying to do here.

They have all the time ( and lots of the money) to do this and they know that the future of mass music consumption is digital and they need to lock it down.

[dwk]

If it is in fact true that the RIAA is advancing a 'new' argument that the mere act of copying to a computer is illegal, it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.  If they thought they were losing in the court of public opinion before, this should be an eye-opener.

IMHO the RIAA in some sense deserves some of what they're getting due to their continual attempts to play both sides of the basic issue - is a recording a physical 'thing', or is it merely a container for licensed content.  These lawsuits are all based on the idea that the 'important part' is the licensed content. However, when it suits their purposes, the RIAA treats recordings as physical things as it greatly increases their profit margins. By obscuring this distinction in their own actions, they are at least partially responsible for the end user confusing the two, at least in my opinion.

IMHO if the RIAA had been more formal in establishing a pricing model that explicitly differentiated between the 'license cost' for the content and a 'media charge' for the physical CD, then they would have better standing for their lawsuits. However, this would almost certainly mean that they would have to offer media replacement services, and possibly even media upgrade services (i.e. trade in the vinyl copy for the CD, and only pay the new media charge). Avoiding both of these things - particularly the winfall of getting everyone to re-purchace their vinyl/casette collections on CD - have been big money-makers for the RIAA. It's somewhat surprising to me that they can get away with claiming that the licensed content is the true value in the product and they deserve to be compensated for sharing based on this, but then turn around and insist that my license to that content is null and void if the CD gets scratched and won't play on my system, forcing me to shell out the full cost of both the media and the license to replace it.

In contrast, the software industry gets this right. When you buy software these days, you pay $X for the right to use the software. If you also want physical media/manuals, there is an additional charge which is basically just a nominal markup on the production cost of the physical goods. If I then want to get replacement media for some reason, I simply pay the media charge again, not the full license cost of the software. (Of course, there are maintenance charges and upgrade fees etc that the software world has access to that the RIAA doesn't, but I don't think that undermines the basic point)

I do fully agree that some degree of prosecution is needed against those that are deliberately and knowingly violating copyright by blatant and large-scale downloading. IMHO there isn't any ambiguity in the idea that downloading music that you've never paid for in any form is illegal, and you should be open to prosecution for that. However, the RIAA is perversely going after the folks that are doing the sharing rather than the folks that are downloading; since by definition they have paid for a license to the content, this means that the the issue is inherently more ambiguous. Certainly, it is more cost effective as they can nail a single sharer for 1000's of copies of each song, but IMHO it seems to obscure the issue - the greater guilt should be associated with the person that actually does the stealing (i.e. downloading), not the enabler - shouldn't it?

Anyway, it isn't (at the moment) stopping me from continuing to move all my legally purchased CD's onto my file server, as computer-based playback is my primary source (and soon it may be my only source).

[Daygloworange]

From what I remember about copyright infringement as it pertains to music, it is more about illegal distribution than actual copying (for personal use).

They tried to add that "loaning" music was also illegal, but that's really hard to make stick. What if your brother comes in your room and borrow's your Van Halen CD while you're out......Who would go to jail then???

If you have the music on your computer hard drive, in a folder that people have access to via the internet, that's a field day for the RIAA's lawyers.

They also managed to successfully implement a fee that was built into the price of blank cassettes (years ago, when cassettes were still popular), with the arguement that the vast majority of people purchasing them were using them for making copies of records, and thus denying the record companies out of millions of dollars of profits.

I don't think it's possible for them to actually go after a lot of people in this manner. They're just trying to make headlines, and get a buzz going to scare off as many people from doing it as possible.

SPARS (Society of Professional Recording Studios) did a similar thing years ago, where they tried to prevent people from having elaborate home studios (when the proliferation of affordable CD quality recording equipment began), arguing that anyone who had that much invested, was guilty of infringing on the ability of the big time studios from charging the professional fees that they were accustomed to (for years).

That didn't work either....

And just for the record.....I have no idea how that music got on my hard drive........

I've never seen that hard drive before in my life.....

Cheers