December 31, 2007 7:29 AM
Record industry says it's illegal to copy music you OWN
If you routinely copy CDs you've purchased onto your computer hard drive, the recording industry says you're breaking the law.
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."
Just to reiterate: you buy a copy of Bruce Springsteen's new Magic CD, transfer the tracks to your iPod so you have huff and puff to the Boss while you're on the elliptical machine at the gym - and the industry that took your money says you're breaking the law.
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.
I believe people should pay for the music they acquire and I think it's concerning that so many people believe any intellectual property should be free if it's distributed on the Internet, but it's baffling that the recording industry has lagged so far behind technology in devising a secure method to put their product on the Internet.
Thoughts?
December 31, 2007
8:30 AM
Michael writes:
The recording industry is way behind the curve on this as they have been for decades. Who - if you have been around since vinyl, reel-to-reel, cassettes, and WalkMans - has not bought a recording in some format and tranferred it to the medium that best meets your needs or shared a copy with a friend(s)? The recording industry looks foolish and inept when it pursues cases like this. They may be technically and legally correct, but with respect to their public relations and image, they look silly and like bullies.
December 31, 2007
8:45 AM
Frustrated Vet writes:
As a musician who operates a recording studio and has released music, the original copyright laws specifically addressed the issue and stated that as long as any copies you made were not distributed and were for your "own" use, it was not illegal. However giving a copy to a freind constitutes distribution. This is however a panic move by the record industry to try and bolster lost revenue through distribution by electronic means and their failure to keep up with technology. Unfortunately their answer is to over regulate and add snooping digital process's embedded in CD's and software to catch offender's.
December 31, 2007
8:47 AM
Chris writes:
This is a classic case of the record industry's greed. I have already purchased all of these CD's and now they are telling me that I must purchase these songs AGAIN if I want to listen to them on an iPod? Greedy, greedy, greedy.
December 31, 2007
8:51 AM
Frustrated Vet writes:
In addition they also have a huge Lobby for making recent changes to the copyright laws that I am unfamiliar with, that address digital media issues, and you can bet serve their purposes more so than the consumers. As usual our elected officials are more concerned with slipping these types of issues through legislation that confer more help for business's than individuals.
December 31, 2007
8:57 AM
Tree writes:
Is Charley Heston around to save the day?
" you'll have to take this cd from my cold dead hand".
Is this another Dr. Seuss book in disguise? Seems the music people showed up at the party and they have stars on their belly's.
December 31, 2007
9:04 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Tree - Agreed!
I think they realize they are a dinosaur, and are looking to preserve their dying industry. Pretty pathetic really, and they largely have themselves to blame.
Happy New year, all!
December 31, 2007
9:14 AM
Tree writes:
8dude-
Happy New Year. Just think, when the star belly's show up and take your collection away that only means: You now have more time to watch faux news.
December 31, 2007
9:27 AM
JW writes:
If this guy wasnt distributing the copies, how did the music industry find out he'd made copies? Is the NSA now scrubbing public data sans a warrant for the RIAA?
December 31, 2007
9:34 AM
Stand and wave writes:
RIAA probably thinks that college kids have deep pockets and would be an easy touch. The truth is that the college kids should have seen it coming (return address) and simply sent the letter back with "deceased" written on the letter. These kids haven't any money and if RIAA were to try these kids in absentia what would they collect? Used books?
It's time to call their bluff.
December 31, 2007
9:43 AM
David Hakala writes:
The Washington Post story has it a bit wrong. Howell is being sued because the songs he copied were in a directory that was shared with others on the Internet. Several court rulings have held that it is OK to copy CD tunes to your computer for your personal use in what's known as "place shifting".
December 31, 2007
10:04 AM
Patriot writes:
What would Jesus do?
December 31, 2007
11:55 AM
Republican Guy writes:
According to the music industry's argument, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase CDs and transfer the music to your iPod.
This means that you have to buy all your favorite music twice -- once for your CD player and once for you iPod.
To me, this sounds like complete greed on the part of the recording industry without any concern for the consumer.
Also, if music weren't so overpriced, I don't think that piracy would be so rampant. How come I can download 14 songs for $1 apiece on MusicMatch, but those same 14 somgs cost $28 or more if I buy the CD in a local store? (Keep in mind, the cost of blank CDs is about a nickel apiece.)
December 31, 2007
1:05 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
Sounds like the lawyers are trying to come up with as many remotely plausible arguments as possible in hopes one will sway a judge or confuse one's opponents.
People who distribute music copies far and wide are weasels. If you like a song so much you want to share it with a friend, it's only another $1 on iTunes now.
December 31, 2007
5:36 PM
JR writes:
It sounds to me like the thought police have added a new division. RIAA wants it all - for themselves. I believe that once the music is bought, that you should be able to use it as you please, as long as there is no monetary transaction by you to share the songs. What concerns me is that the RIAA isn't particulary concerned about what the artist gets out of all of this. I would bet an old 45rpm disc that if they DO manage to collect anything on that "second sale" the artist isn't gonna see a cent.
January 2, 2008
4:10 PM
The Republican Way writes:
We need to give more tax breaks, and more special legal protections, to huge corporations like record companies.
That's the best way to ensure that they can impose their wills on people - especially scumbag losers who pay 20 bucks for a CD and then have the selfish audacity to try to copy it into their own personal mp3 player.
January 4, 2008
6:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
Who do we contact for help with this foolishness? RIAA has gone way too far with their overprotective stance on consumers who want to copy tunes for themselves and not for profit!
February 2, 2008
11:20 AM
Harrassed by RIAA writes:
AAre there more people out there that have recieved letters from Holme Roberts
& Owen LLP this week? Everyone should get together and sue them for harrassment. My husband has bben named through his IP. He has no clue how to even download music let alone share it. Plus the music they are accussing him is unknown to us. We are confussed and MMAD!!!