So now legally buying a CD and putting it on your CPU is illegal

[BacktoBasics]

So now its not just about distributing the music, if you own it you can't put it on your computer.

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.

[DannyT]

yup i read about this last week....can you believe this stupid shit man...am I post to settle for the lame ass hip hop mixes that come out on WOW 4027...those cd are gay...if this holds up say bye bye to the mp3 players....

[BacktoBasics]

So basically you have 4 candy bars in your car that you purchased at the corner store. You take 2 out and put them in the freezer for 30 minutes. You then eat them. So now you stole two candy bars.

[Soul_Patch]

Thats fairly ridiculous.


What about taking mp3's from Itunes and putting them on cd's?

I dont see this standing up to any appeals.

[Supreme_Being]

I laughed.

[thispego]

So basically you have 4 candy bars in your car that you purchased at the corner store. You take 2 out and put them in the freezer for 30 minutes. You then eat them. So now you stole two candy bars.
that is a shitty analogy

I don't really know which side to take on this, the lawsuits that are being dropped on these people are wayy too harsh, but on the other hand, according to the letter of the law, people are blatantly stealing/distributing songs

[Melmart1]

So, if I convert a CD track to mp3 to put on my iPod, does that constitute stealing, since it is technically a copy of the song? WTF? I am stealing music I have owned for years and years? You have to be fucking kidding me! Why have an digital media player at all, then?

I still can't believe that the music industry thinks that suing their own customers is the best way to make a profit.

[thispego]

So, if I convert a CD track to mp3 to put on my iPod, does that constitute stealing, since it is technically a copy of the song? WTF? I am stealing music I have owned for years and years? You have to be fucking kidding me! Why have an digital media player at all, then?

I still can't believe that the music industry thinks that suing their own customers is the best way to make a profit.
doesn't the label on every cd say to not make unauthorized copies? why arent the mp3 companies and computer companies who put cd burners in all their pc's getting sued?

[Soul_Patch]

doesn't the label on every cd say to not make unauthorized copies? why arent the mp3 companies and computer companies who put cd burners in all their pc's getting sued?


exactly. i dont think, unless they totaly reverse the entire digital media trend, this will hold up in court.

[Melmart1]

doesn't the label on every cd say to not make unauthorized copies? why arent the mp3 companies and computer companies who put cd burners in all their pc's getting sued?
I am not going to buy a copy for each media device I own. If I buy a CD, I should be within my rights to put it on my media player and even on my computer, as long as I don't share. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy an mp3 from iTunes for the iPod then a separate CD to listen to on my stereo of the same damn album/song. Fuck that.

[thispego]

didn't say it wasn't stupid but it's why the record companies are winning their lawsuits

[BacktoBasics]

that is a shitty analogy

So I buy two black guys for yard work and take both of them home. I put one in the fridge for later and one to work right away. I decide to take the other black out guy of the fridge to paint my house instead of doing yard work. Now I've stolen one black guy?

[leemajors]

you can't rip it and put it in a shared folder for sharing with others, according to the RIAA. you can rip your own CDs for private mp3 use all you want.

[BacktoBasics]

you can't rip it and put it in a shared folder for sharing with others, according to the RIAA. you can rip your own CDs for private mp3 use all you want.Well thats not what they're saying now.


the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

No where does it state exactly where on the CPU its acceptable it simply states you cannot transfer a CD onto a computer.

[thispego]

So I buy two black guys for yard work and take both of them home. I put one in the fridge for later and one to work right away. I decide to take the other black out guy of the fridge to paint my house instead of doing yard work. Now I've stolen one black guy?
hahaha, no because you bought two in the first place. and what's with putting them in the freezer?

Maybe if you bought one black guy.. had him impregnate your wife, then you raised the bastard black child and put him to work when he was old enough... then you have stolen one black guy

[ATRAIN]

How will they know unless your being investigated.

[leemajors]

Well thats not what they're saying now.



No where does it state exactly where on the CPU its acceptable it simply states you cannot transfer a CD onto a computer.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84296

[CuckingFunt]

So I buy two black guys for yard work and take both of them home. I put one in the fridge for later and one to work right away. I decide to take the other black out guy of the fridge to paint my house instead of doing yard work. Now I've stolen one black guy?
Still a crappy analogy.

It's more like buying one black guy for manual labor, throwing him in a cloning device, and using both the black guy and his clone to perform your manual labor. You paid for the first black guy, and you're not distributing his clone, but you still made a copy.

[BacktoBasics]

hahaha, no because you bought two in the first place. and what's with putting them in the freezer?

Maybe if you bought one black guy.. had him impregnate your wife, then you raised the bastard black child and put him to work when he was old enough... then you have stolen one black guyLet me try again. I take pictures of Chinese people and take the camera to have the old school film developed. I then make copies of the Chinese peoples pictures on my scanner and mail out multiple copies to family and friends for them to enjoy much like I do. I just stole from the photo lab?

[Spurminator]

hahaha, no because you bought two in the first place. and what's with putting them in the freezer?

Maybe if you bought one black guy.. had him impregnate your wife, then you raised the bastard black child and put him to work when he was old enough... then you have stolen one black guy


I think for the analogy to work you'd have to clone him without the permission of the guy who sold him to you.

[Dex]

Oh nos. They're gonna come and take my mixtapes from the radio! :(

[monosylab1k]

Still a crappy analogy.

It's more like buying one black guy for manual labor, throwing him in a cloning device, and using both the black guy and his clone to perform your manual labor. You paid for the first black guy, and you're not distributing his clone, but you still made a copy.
Still a crappy analogy.

We all know black people don't work very hard so even if you make an illegal clone you won't get your moneys worth and nobody will complain. Change it to a Mexican and we're in business with this analogy stuff.

[thispego]

Let me try again. I take pictures of Chinese people and take the camera to have the old school film developed. I then make copies of the Chinese peoples pictures on my scanner and mail out multiple copies to family and friends for them to enjoy much like I do. I just stole from the photo lab?
does that particular photo lab have rules against copying photos that they developed?

[ATRAIN]

Still a crappy analogy.

We all know black people don't work very hard so even if you make an illegal clone you won't get your moneys worth and nobody will complain. Change it to a Mexican and we're in business with this analogy stuff.


So if you helped a wetback cross over, had him cut your yard. Then cloned him and had his other copies cut your friends yards, then that would be wrong?

[thispego]

I think for the analogy to work you'd have to clone him without the permission of the guy who sold him to you.
:nerd troo troo troo

[monosylab1k]

Let me try again. I take pictures of Chinese people and take the camera to have the old school film developed. I then make copies of the Chinese peoples pictures on my scanner and mail out multiple copies to family and friends for them to enjoy much like I do. I just stole from the photo lab?
You guys are getting this analogy stuff all wrong. First you use black people as an example of a "worker" instead of Mexicans. Now this.

Chinese people don't take pictures, Japanese people do. But they're all the same so I get why you'd make that mistake.

[monosylab1k]

btw i'm part black/mexican/chinese/japanese/white so I can make all these comments without being racist.

[BacktoBasics]

Alright once and for all.

I buy a twelve pack of bottled water the package clearly states its not to be broken up and redisributed as individual bottles. I then drink half a bottle and then put half in the freezer. I eat the ice piss in a water filter and then boil my urine. I then move the purified waste in the bottle. Then drink it again while sharing it with a friend. I'm stealing water?

[thispego]

Alright once and for all.

I buy a twelve pack of bottled water the package clearly states its not to be broken up and redisributed as individual bottles. I then drink half a bottle and then put half in the freezer. I eat the ice piss in a water filter and then boil my urine. I then move the purified waste in the bottle. Then drink it again while sharing it with a friend. I'm stealing water?
yes

no

how did you eat the ice out of a water bottle?

[lil'mo]

Alright once and for all.

I buy a twelve pack of bottled water the package clearly states its not to be broken up and redisributed as individual bottles. I then drink half a bottle and then put half in the freezer. I eat the ice piss in a water filter and then boil my urine. I then move the purified waste in the bottle. Then drink it again while sharing it with a friend. I'm stealing water?
nahh, you're just being frugal :tu

[monosylab1k]

how long could you drink your own urine to survive?

[BacktoBasics]

yes

no

how did you eat the ice out of a water bottle?A cloned ice pick from the Sharper Image.

[ATRAIN]

What if you take a shower, save the water. Then lend it to a friend to shower, are you stealing water?

[thispego]

thievery

[monosylab1k]

What if you take a shower, save the water. Then lend it to a friend to shower, are you stealing water?
No it means you're Mexican, we've been through this already.

[ATRAIN]

No it means you're Mexican, we've been through this already.


Damn thats what I figured :(

[Kermit]

Too bad none of this is true.

Washington Post Flubs Story On RIAA -- RIAA Still Not Going After Personal Copies (Yet)
from the who-needs-to-read-the-details? dept

Back at the beginning of December, we helped debunk a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer. That story was misleading, at best. While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs. Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs. That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry question the Washington Post on this as well. It looks as though the Post's source for the story is the same as the earlier story: lawyer Ray Beckerman. Beckerman has done (and continues to do) a fantastic job fighting the RIAA against its bogus lawsuits. However, he still has failed to explain how the RIAA's filing actually says what he claims it says. While he suggested I don't understand because I am not familiar enough with the minutia of copyright law, I don't see how he can say the same for Patry, who literally wrote a nearly 6,000 page book on copyright. Of course, now that the Washington Post has republished this already debunked story, many other publications are spreading it. I emailed the Washington Post writer asking for clarification on Monday, but have not yet heard back.

Furthermore, there is one other point that is worth highlighting. It was noted in the comments to our original post. The filing points out that when Howell ripped his CDs and put them into a shared folder, those files were no longer "authorized." It's important to note that there's a difference between unauthorized and illegal. Beckerman seems to be saying that by saying "unauthorized" the RIAA means illegal -- but that need not be the case. It's perfectly legal to rip your CDs, even if it's not authorized. It's well established that ripping a CD for personal backup purposes is perfectly legal, even if it's not authorized. What the RIAA appears to be saying is that by putting those backup files into a shared folder, the rips no longer were made for personal use, thus pushing them over the line to illegal. Yes, the RIAA is still pushing its luck in its description, but as was clearly established back at the beginning of December, it is not (yet) claiming that Howell broke the law simply by ripping his CDs -- and it's too bad that the Washington Post has repeated it in a way that caused a bunch of other sites to suddenly claim that it was true.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml

[dimsah]

None of it matters now. The RIAA and big four labels are done. This is the dying breath of a once mighty empire. The last cash grab before it goes belly up.

Apple is currently in talks to start their own label which will destroy any chance the RIAA has to survive. Apple already has a digital distribution model.

Years of going after their own customers, more and more people will look to circumvent the system whether legally or otherwise.

[ShoogarBear]

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."
This summarizes everything perfectly. The RIAA is generating so much bad will, that when somebody finally is smart enough to come up with the new business model, the RIAA will be shut out.

[ShoogarBear]

BacktoBasics is to analogies as Britney Spears is to court dates.

[BacktoBasics]

BacktoBasics is to analogies as Britney Spears is to court dates.Are you calling me a dirty whore?

[ATRAIN]

Are you calling me a dirty whore?


I think he is calling you a dumb dirty whore!! I wouldn't take that if I were you !!