Riaa

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Justin24

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
6,716
Location
San Mateo
Since this technically has to do with music I thought I might post this here. If not the Mod's can move it. Now the RIAA is saying it is illegal for people to copy CD's one has purchased onto their PC. A man is being sued by the RIAA for having 2,000 songs that he burned from his CD's to his Computer.

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

Download Uproar: Record

By Marc Fisher
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.
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.
 
lol. Sign and promote decent artists / performers and people will pay again. Instead they sign the same act with 10 different names over and over again. Big record companies have seemingly always been the stupidest people in the room - at least for the past 30 years or so.
 
I was reading about this case yesterday, and apparently the man isn't in trouble for having those burned copies of CDs he owns, it's that he had them in a shared folder and was sharing them through a P2P thingie.

I see the article doesn't mention it, but here's a key point:

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.

But yeah, in general the RIAA is doing everything they can to make them look like complete evil dumbasses.

Edit: Here's a link that discusses the case and the illegal downloading aspect of it:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/
 
Last edited:
But I guess, if I read correctly, a judge has never ruled whether making digital copies of a CD you already known is legal or not.

But yeah, in this guy's case, it's because he put those in a shared folder. Once he did that, they became unauthorized copies.

Interesting. And the RIAA still sucks. :wink:
 
Yeah, it's obviously the "sharing" part that's being contested.

Supposedly, according to a ruling back in the '80's on "tape trading", people can legally make copies of anything they own for their own use. I think you can even share them with "friends", and that's why there's never been an over-arching solid ruling on these file sharing issues, as it's difficult to define "friends".
 
u2popmofo said:
I think you can even share them with "friends", and that's why there's never been an over-arching solid ruling on these file sharing issues, as it's difficult to define "friends".

I bet the people in the RIAA never had "friends" that made them mixed tapes back in the day. So this is their revenge. :happy:
 
I stopped downloading illegally two years ago. Out of the 7000 songs on my computer, I had less than 1000--and I got rid of those because most of them were poor quality and/or skipped. The rest are all from cds owned by me or my brother or a friend who has an iPod but no computer (maybe 6 cds worth). It's ridiculous to me that I could get sued for having 6000+ songs on my computer that I paid for.
 
My position is if Sony music, for example, doesn't want me to copy music, why do they sell CD burners, blank CD-R's and MP3 players in the first place?

As far as file sharing is concerned - try and stop me!
 
After the raid on OiNK's Pink Palace via the RIAA, this article was circulated around (and for good reason). It now sits -with priority- on the remnants of the OiNK site, and it elaborates on some of the ambiguities and paradoxes associated with "illegal" downloading.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

Personally, I'm sick of buying CDs and vinyl (for monetary and space reasons), and as of yet, there are no authorized vendors of legal digital content that have a satisfactory price system and broad enough music selection. The RIAA isn't doing the industry a favor by making the means of acquiring music less convenient.
 
I think this is probably the most level-headed estimation of how the RIAA and music industry should approach sharing and digital media:

"Almost universally, bands and musicians are happy if anyone is interested in their music enough to become a fan, and they know there are many opportunities to do some business with such a person that may or may not involve selling him a particular record. They also recognize that a download by someone unwilling to buy a record is not a "lost sale," because that person has made it clear that he is unwilling to buy a record. You haven't lost a sale, you've made a fan for free. Fans eventually want to buy records, concert tickets and other things."

- Steve Albini (Infamous Producer and dude of rock distortiondom)
 
Pinball Wizard said:
After the raid on OiNK's Pink Palace via the RIAA, this article was circulated around (and for good reason). It now sits -with priority- on the remnants of the OiNK site, and it elaborates on some of the ambiguities and paradoxes associated with "illegal" downloading.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

Personally, I'm sick of buying CDs and vinyl (for monetary and space reasons), and as of yet, there are no authorized vendors of legal digital content that have a satisfactory price system and broad enough music selection. The RIAA isn't doing the industry a favor by making the means of acquiring music less convenient.

Thanks for the link. That was a good read.
 
i used to get really upset when reading what the riaa was up to.

the suing, and the like.

now, while comical in a dark sense, almost everyone knows that they're losing a battle they cannot win.

BUSINESS MODELS CHANGE.

they can go to court, and write all the letters they like but it won't do them any good. it's already changed years ago, and they're their own architects of failure.

it's a shame these random individuals they're picking on bear the brunt of their ineptitude, though.

everything about these suits are absurd. it cannot be maid further evident than by their settlements themselves. no song is worth a set amount, it's all wildly thrown about. some songs are worth thousands, others much less. they just want whatever they can get... i've never once seen a price foundation from which they've worked from.

oh well. time's already left them behind. they're so out of touch, i reckon this won't even be an issue in a few years time as they'll have had no choice but to finally look at the industry in a totally different light.
 
lazarus said:
It still amazes me that anyone uses Peer-to-Peer anymore, when Torrenting is available.

Torrenting isn't any safer.

My brother and cousin both received cease and desist letters from Paramount via their ISPs after downloading some movies on Torrents.
 
corianderstem said:
Here's a link that discusses the case and the illegal downloading aspect of it:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/
:lol: i love the title of that article!

i'm so sick of hearing about all of this. like deathbear said, they're fighting a losing battle and i wish they'd realise that. they can sue every single person who's ever illegally downloaded anything, and people will still continue to do it. new people will download torrents and the like, and some of those who'd been sued will download too just out of spite.

my isp has blocked torrents, so i couldn't download them anyway even if i wanted. glad to see they've decided for me what i should and shouldn't do like i'm six years old. :|

there's got to be some sort of way the downloaders and the riaa can coexist peacefully. i don't think they'll let that happen until they bankrupt themselves though.
 
For some of the torrent-blocking issues, there are ways around it. I have Comcast and while I could download with no problem, it wouldn't let me upload, so any site where you have to keep up a good share ration, I was screwed.

But I looked into it online a bit and found a few things I could do to get around that, and so far, so good. (Knock on wood.)

Most of what I download via torrent are live concert bootlegs, so I'm not too worried about that. I do download a TV show here or there - maybe two or three a year.
 
corianderstem said:
For some of the torrent-blocking issues, there are ways around it. I have Comcast and while I could download with no problem, it wouldn't let me upload, so any site where you have to keep up a good share ration, I was screwed.

The studios care about uploading, not downloading. I wonder if my brother still has his letter, but that was pretty much the crux of it.
 
Ah, so they want to go after those who do the sharing, not the taking. That makes sense.

I've seen similar letters posted online by folks who have received them.
 
I haven't seen numbers for iTunes users so I'm not sure how widespread paying for downloads is. However, I still think it's absurd to charge us $9.99 per full CD downloaded. Frankly a lot of actual CDs can be bought for that amount or just a couple of bucks more when they're first released. And then you get a CD, the artwork, case, and not to mention, the far superior quality. iTunes peddles shitty quality which you can't even burn without the use of other software, without artwork or any physical, tangible thing.

You'd have to look at profit margins to find out what is fair, but I suspect they could sell albums for far less than $9.99 and songs for far less than 99 cents and people would use it more.
 
anitram said:
Frankly a lot of actual CDs can be bought for that amount or just a couple of bucks more when they're first released. And then you get a CD, the artwork, case, and not to mention, the far superior quality.

That's why I only but individual songs and the occasional ep from iTunes, never a full cd.

But I can burn my iTunes purchases without anything extra. :scratch:
 
anitram said:


Torrenting isn't any safer.

My brother and cousin both received cease and desist letters from Paramount via their ISPs after downloading some movies on Torrents.


Well, I never download movies. The movie studios are the guys you really don't want to mess with.

For me it's mostly TV shows, specifically British ones that don't air in the U.S. at the same time, or ones that aren't on the air anymore or on DVD.
 
Well, at least it seems the movie studios will tell you "Hey, knock it off, bonehead" before they come after you.

Maybe the RIAA should take some notes.
 
Back
Top Bottom