Reply With Quote
yup i read about this last week....can you believe this stupid 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....
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 do ents 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.
yup i read about this last week....can you believe this stupid 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....
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.
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.
I laughed.
that is a ty 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
So, if I convert a CD track to mp3 to put on my iPod, does that cons ute 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 ing 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?
exactly. i dont think, unless they totaly reverse the entire digital media trend, this will hold up in court.
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 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. that.
didn't say it wasn't stupid but it's why the record companies are winning their lawsuits
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?
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.
No where does it state exactly where on the CPU its acceptable it simply states you cannot transfer a CD onto a computer.the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
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 bas black child and put him to work when he was old enough... then you have stolen one black guy
How will they know unless your being investigated.
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.
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?
I think for the analogy to work you'd have to clone him without the permission of the guy who sold him to you.
Oh nos. They're gonna come and take my mixtapes from the radio!
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.
does that particular photo lab have rules against copying photos that they developed?
So if you helped a cross over, had him cut your yard. Then cloned him and had his other copies cut your friends yards, then that would be wrong?
troo troo troo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
