“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,” Marc Fisher reports for The Washington Post.
MacDailyNews Take: Let’s be fair here: “finding free songs online” is a really nice way of phrasing “stealing” (unless you’re talking about relatively obscure indies or the odd promotional track).
Fisher continues, “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,” Fisher reports.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “neo” for the heads up.]
If they ever succeed in getting some judge to say that making a personal copy is illegal, if, indeed, that is what the RIAA is seeking, then we will never buy another bit of music again. The operative word being “buy.”
We want to do the right thing. We want to be able to buy reasonably-priced, DRM-free music online. But, the RIAA seems to continually want to get in the way and, if they’re going after personal copies, they’re going way too far.
This much is clear: they can’t sue everybody. Not even close. The RIAA absolutely hates when people do the math, which is why we love to do it: In the last 10 years or so, the RIAA has brought 20,000 cases to court. That’s 2,000 cases per year on average. Divide that by however many tens of millions of downloaders there are in the U.S. alone and you’ll find that he odds of getting sued by the RIAA are amazingly long. You have a better chance of dating a supermodel than of being sued by the RIAA.
If RIAA gets some judge to interpret the law that way, then the law will change be changed soon thereafter.
I saw a huge old model train display once. It was really super. If I were to date it, I’d say 1951.
I’m sorry, RIAA, which part of me “buying” your music, do you still own?
If I bought two cans of coke, one I drank the other I used to wash coins with, what’s there to say that I can’t do that.
I bought the music, I therefore OWN it.
To Non Sequitur:
Yeah, but that still leaves the Perseus Spiral Arm with a radius of approximately 10,700 parsecs.
“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,”
Let the RIAA argue this. They’d have to sue every PC, Mac, and iPod owner in the world, individually, to enforce it.
Then again, you gotta wonder who the real victims are here. Note it’s the industry LAWYER making this absurd claim; is it about justice or his own job security??
The RIAA’s own lampreys, er lawyers, are aiming to pull in whatever they can in fees (Dear RIAA: you’re being milked.). I bet the suits are orgasmic just thinking what kind of fees suing everyone would bring in.
MW: taken
There should be some sort of class action suit by CD purchasers against the recording labels. They certainly have the market research and stats to know that they are selling the bulk of their hundreds of millions of CDs to customers that no longer use a CD player. I’m not a lawyer and I’m half kidding (though it’s less farfetched than some of the actions against Apple.)
They can’t have it both ways! The CD player is a relic of the 20th century. Unless they want to sell CDs in the same quantity as they do vinyl, the have to include the rights to rip to one’s own computer and media player.
It’s the most stupid move EVER… telling the vast majority of purchasers of the format that produces 80% of their revenues that their use is illegal… that there is NO legal distinction between buying a CD for use on an ipod and just getting an illegal download.
Seriously… I’ve never downloaded an illegal song in my life. Now they’re telling me that I’m breaking the law just as much by buying CDs from them.
My gawd that’s just plain insane. They just told us all not to buy CDs.
btw Does anyone know an email address to contact the riaa?
this isn’t right…and by not right I mean, the Washington Post article is incorrect. Go to the FAQ section of RIAA.com and look at #11. or look to this site (http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html) that the RIAA pushes people to and look under copying CDs…by the RIAA copying a CD for your own personal use or ripping it to MP3 is ok.
There has to be more to this story. How would the RIAA even find someone who copied their CD to MP3 if they weren’t also sharing it online…this story makes no sense.
At last the US has “caught up” with Australia, where it’s illegal to rip your own CDs. Of course, iPods still sold like crazy before the iTunes Store opened here.
@Cubert. Email the RIAA what you think:
piracy@riaa.org
If you do that, they’ll know who you are and come after you.
Has no one RTFA? The RIAA, not that I defend them in any way shape or form, said it’s illegal to rip a CD that you own ***THEN PUT THOSE MP3 FILES IN A SHARED FOLDER*** that is accessible to people via the Internet.
Jeez, I love Macdailynews, but someone hasn’t done their homework on this one.
Apple Inc. makes the best personal computers on earth
Of course they do. (For the most part; we won’t get into current iMac screens….).
The problem is if this lawsuit succeeds and becomes a precedent. How bad would Apple be pulled into it?
Remember, if gun makers can be sued for being “enablers” of street crime, Apple can be sued for being an enabler of cyber crime.
What if Apple is forced to revise iTunes, taking out the import and burn features, and only allowing MS-style “squirts” to iPods? What if every iTunes user is legally bound to adopt the new hobbled version? What if we’re forced to sign and return documents saying we’ll delete all our imported music?
Of course, only about 100% of the market will say fsck this and keep their tunes anyway. But it’d be hell for Apple and their stock price.
@ron,
To the RIAA I say “BRING IT!!!!!”
@yet another steve,
See my post above you for email address.
I had the same reaction as RIAASS. How WOULD they know about this? There does have to be more to the story.
I wish all the hackers and crackers who make decent peoples lives miserable would band together and make a concerted effort to attack the RIAA in anyway they can. I think that if I had the ability I would. But who knows, those Cro-Magnon knuckledraggers may use cave paintings instead of PCs.
What’s worse than these scumbags are the incompetent asswipes in D.C. who have given them dictatorial powers. I wish we could string up the lot of them.
Fair enough. I’ll never buy another CD again. And to think people were worried Steve Jobs would change the access rights to DRM songs he sold on iTunes.
Middilay: “Reality check people… You are stealing the same as the guy that robs a convenience store. It may be more polite but it is the same in the end. “
Sorry, Middilay, but I think you have fallen for the false logic of the music industry. Reality check! Robbing a convenience store is NOT the same as copying digital media — they differ on a number of dimensions. You’ve been fooled into using the word “stealing” for both acts, even though they differ substantially.
1. Digital media can be copied without harming the original or depriving the owner of the original.
2. Digital media uses minimal resources, and therefore enables EVERYONE to have a copy without depriving anyone.
3. Digital media does not have substance, is intangible. It’s just bits and ideas.
4. There is very little historical precedent for giving ideas and their conceptual representation the status of “property” — this was an invention of the last 200 years. There’s good reason to believe it’s an idea that isn’t working any more.
We all need to seriously re-evaluate the moral and legal status of our concept of copyright. There are substantial benefits to society of sharing digital media, such as the benefits of equal access to humankind’s intellectual and artistic legacy. These seem to far outweigh the benefits of propping up a misguided music industry.
Which would apparently make the President of the United States of America, the Vice-President and numerous other iPod-owning members of all branches of the US Government criminals.
Not to mention artists who rip the music they created and paid to record.
If anyone wonders why EMI Group wishes to reduce its contribution to the anti-piracy efforts of the RIAA, BPI, IFPI et al, I think you may just have discovered the reason.
@ Question Please
I would love it if Steve and Co. would return to just making Macintosh Computers. In fact, I’d prefer is they went back to OS 9. Then we’d be able to compete against a declining market share and outdated hardware and software technology.
Get real dude. Apple would probably have been the victim of a hostile takeover if they hadn’t expanded their product line and customer base.
Plus your logic is flawed. You don’t rip music to an iPod, you rip it to a computer. Eliminating these products and going back to a Mac only product line would be pointless.
Mikey
@ Tom
These are the same legitimizing statements I hear from the people that are consistently stealing media content.
Don’t misunderstand me. Ripping your own bought music to your computer for use on your purchased ipod is different from getting the newest album or single via bit torrent.
If you didn’t buy it you stole it. There really isn’t any other way to look at it.
No matter what way you try to legitimize it in your own mind it is stolen.
I would be curious to ask the artist (forget the record label) “I downloaded your new album from bit torrent do you mind if I don’t but it?” I don’t think that was their intention to create their music to be accessed for free by the thousands.
In every possible way, the RIAA is insane. It astonishes me that no one has brought a countersuit of any kind against this organization. I understand and acknowledge that the music industry is harmed by the unlimited transfer of perfect digital copies of music, but I feel the consumer is being attacked while the real pirates laugh all the way to the bank.
They are also sadly mistaken if they believe that their Gestapo tactics will somehow coerce people into music stores, to buy over priced piles of plastic to get one song they like and 8 they could care less about. That business model is as dead as Elvis.
They need to understand that we are not interested in storing atoms anymore. We are interested in storing bits, and they just don’t get this. The only reason that the industry is making any money right now is because of the infusion of excitement that digital technology has brought to the table.
Apple’s iTunes and iPod made me a consumer of music again. My music purchases had dwindled to nothing, and now I spend anywhere from $600 to $1000 per year on music because of the convenience, the ability to store large quantities, and the ability listen anywhere I like. These are demonstrable rights.
The bottom line is if my next door neighbor gives me a copy of some drug addict’s Christmas album and I play it, that’s probably the only way I’m ever going to hear it. I am NOT, nope never again, going to go to a music store and search for music. Not going to happen. I believe this is true in the vast majority of cases.
If all the computers and iPods in the world vanished this moment, there would be no lines at the local record store. First the industry would see an astonishing drop in their current sales of music. People would lose interest. A new music industry in which the artist FINALLY goes directly to the consumer would emerge for both live and pre-recorded music. It’s almost there now.
They need to face it. The world of the giant record label is over. “We the people” are no longer paying for the lavish offices and inflated salaries and lifestyles of the morons known as A&R;executives. Nor are we interested in funding the efforts of the RIAA, and quite frankly I don’t give a s&*& if R. Kelly has less money to spend on little girls and his legal defense fund.
Music companies claim they are needed to promote artists. Bull. The best promoters our there are Internet radios stations and the RIAA has all but shut them down as well. Even so, I find music on the Internet now. I don’t listen to the radio. I have never and shall never care what “label” an artist is on.
Ultimately I hope some shark of a lawyer decides to sue the RIAA on behalf of consumers. I will be one of the first to contribute to an online legal fund.
Hey, I’m with a supermodel, Others may not think not, but i certainly believe she is!
As to the music industry dudes… there are no more dangerous creatures than those that are caged,staring out with the perception (reality) that the walls are closing in.
@Joe
“While I might agree that it is technically stealing when you download content illegally, it is not the same as stealing a pack of gum. The profit margins both movie studios and record labels have been enjoying over the last 50 years are staggering.”
So Joe, where do you draw the line? 1% profit margins? 5%? 20%? You see the problem with that? When is stealing “okay”?
It is interesting that none of you have questioned that the crux of the RIAA argument is to seek judicial review of the copyright laws, and to reverse the Supreme Court’s previous decision on Sony Betamax vs. Universal that resulted in the doctrine of Fair Use. Essentially, RIAA has decided to use this case to take away an fundamental freedom. If this goes to the Supreme Court, and finds in favor of RIAA, it would be illegal to make any copies in whole or in part of copyrighted material. In essence, what you thought you owned, including books, music and videos, would now be owned by the copyright holders, and not by you.
Consider the implications of what RIAA is attempting to do. If you see this as an utter violation of your freedom as I do, then you need to watch this case very carefully.
I have never stolen music in my life. I don’t agree with stealing. But the actions of RIAA are appalling and obscene. If RIAA wins, then I will join the pirates immediately. As a wise man once said, “my arrogance extends as far as my conscience demands.” If you feel the same way, it’s up to us to fight and kill the monster that is RIAA.
@sosumi
I remember you from the System 7 days Good to hear from you again!
This Barbra Streisand reminded me to transfer all 2400 cd’s to my Mac. That’ll take till the NY.