RIAA: Fuck you!

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

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

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.
ad_icon

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.

So does this mean I'm going to jail? :???:
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Oh, so now unless you can prove you bought everything on your computer, you're a criminal?

This guy who supposedly legally owns all these tunes on his computer probably has a case against his ISP and the RIAA, as what right do they have to scan his computer in addition to everything that's gone through the network?

Of course, that is if he actually did transfer the tunes from his own copy.


Ah well, more old media feeling they can hold the dam together with packing tape.
 
Wow, I'd hate to see what other kinda of laws go into play. How does one even prove he purchases the music online legally? secondly what if someone isn't even connected to the internet or dosnt have a burner of any kind to distribute these files?
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
CnC said:
Oh, so now unless you can prove you bought everything on your computer, you're a criminal?

So would I need the receipts or cd's to prove I own them? If the RIAA can sue people based on theories rather then evidence what can stop them from saying with out the combination of cd's and receipts I stole said items? This is why I don't listen to music.

TriFrog said:
secondly what if someone isn't even connected to the internet or dosnt have a burner of any kind to distribute these files?

I'm guessing they'd sue you for having the intent to illegally spread their garbage.
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
So would I need the receipts or cd's to prove I own them?

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that's what they're saying.

My question is HOW does the RIAA even know this guy has 2000 songs on his computer? There seems to be a clear breach of privacy if either the ISP or RIAA can scan your computer irregardless of internet activity.
 
S

smoke

Guest
Pretty soon it'll be illegal to play music at parties. Everyone will have to own a copy of the CD or something.
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
smoke said:
Pretty soon it'll be illegal to play music at parties. Everyone will have to own a copy of the CD or something.

That was already debated in the past, believe it or not. If I remember theres some kind of rules against broadcasting any copyrighted material, but for the most part it's tolerated. Could be wrong, tho.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
smoke said:
Pretty soon it'll be illegal to play music at parties. Everyone will have to own a copy of the CD or something.

Hahaha man, if only you knew. I can't speak for the USA, but here in France, we do have a law that specifically states that people have the right to make copies of things they earn, in case they lost the original product or such stuff. Of course our equivalent of the RIAA is trying all they can to destroy it, and they've managed to put taxes on writable CDs, DVDs, mp3 players, and are fighting tooth and nails to just tax HDDs in general. Those taxes are supposedly to compensate for the money lost from illegal downloads, everybody pay them, but people still get sent to court when they download stuff even though everybody is already paying anytime they buy a media that could possibly receive music on it, no matter what they do with it (and the more capacity the media has, the more you pay too).

Now the reason I'm replying to what you said is because here it can be counted as illegal to play music at parties. It's considered broadcasting to a group of people, and it's outside the "personal use" of the product you're supposed to have. Even back in the 80s, there were cases of folks getting visited by cops while having parties because their grumpy old neighbors had ratted them out, and they'd be fined for that sort of shit. And God forbid they had some tapes they recorded from radio or elsewhere instead of buying them...

So my point is that once those organizations will have run out of other options, they most certainly will try to pull out that shit. You know, considering the US' history with violence, this stuff's probably going to end when some guy will show up at the RIAA's HQ with an assault rifle and a belt of explosives. :guts:
 

Forest Wraith

Evil is born when we lose power over ourselves.
Aazealh said:
You know, considering the US' history with violence, this stuff's probably going to end when some guy will show up at the RIAA's HQ with an assault rifle and a belt of explosives. :guts:

"Gawd Bless A'mericuh'!"
 

Dirty Dog

Avatar by CnC ^^
Aazealh said:
So my point is that once those organizations will have run out of other options, they most certainly will try to pull out that shit. You know, considering the US' history with violence, this stuff's probably going to end when some guy will show up at the RIAA's HQ with an assault rifle and a belt of explosives. :guts:

That'd be me if they have the balls to scan my computer and send me one of those bullshit letters.

smoke said:
Pretty soon it'll be illegal to play music at parties. Everyone will have to own a copy of the CD or something.
Technically, movies are already like that. Have you read the "FBI warning" at the beginning of every video casette (I forget if they have them on DVDs or not, I don't watch movies often anymore)? In any event, I don't believe it should be an issue as long as you're not making money off of it or recieving it in it's entirety for free, but then again what I believe and what the people making the rules believe are usually in conflict with eachother...
 
I'm still wondering when the RIAA will make such a move that they inadvertently cause a massive lawsuit against themselves for violating their own copyright laws, or, lord forbid they aren't doing it already, constitutional, and are forced to reimburse all the under and over the counter lawsuits they've made+ a fine out the ass for each music group they've claimed to represent.

I think they call that Justice or something? Hm, its probably copyrighted.
 
Top Bottom