Record Industry Goes After Personal Use - Linux

This is a discussion on Record Industry Goes After Personal Use - Linux ; ....the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: ...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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

  1. Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


    ....the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    further: ...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 [against an individual named
    Howell], 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.
    ad_icon

    "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.

    [Murky legality of copying CDs to your computer...]

    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....

    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.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

  2. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:08:44 -0800, nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:

    >
    > ...the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    > further: ...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 [against an individual named
    > Howell], 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.
    > ad_icon
    >
    > "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.
    >
    > [Murky legality of copying CDs to your computer...]
    >
    > 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....
    >
    > 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.
    >

    >
    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html


    These loons need their heads examining. What planet do they live on? Do
    they think they can make criminals of the entire population?

    --
    Kier


  3. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    Kier wrote:


    > These loons need their heads examining. What planet do they live on? Do
    > they think they can make criminals of the entire population?
    >


    Particularly as it's a standard clause in most software EULAs to be able to
    make a copy of the software for backup purposes - what's the difference
    between an Office suite CD and a music CD?


  4. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


    That's not actually correct. What they are arguing in that case is that
    if you rip a CD and place the ripped copies in your P2P shared folders,
    then they are unauthorized copies. They are *NOT* arguing the ripping
    per se is illegal. Go read the article on this on Slashdot, and you'll
    find cites to their court filings, if you want the details about what
    they are claiming.

    (And you'll find cites to where the RIAA has stated, before the Supreme
    Court, that ripping to use on a portable player is NOT illegal).

    My guess is that they are making this argument in order to sidestep the
    question of whether the files the defendant made available for sharing
    were actually downloaded by anybody. The defendant might try a fair use
    defense, but fair use depends on the *purpose* for making the copies.
    Making a copy (ripping) to put on your MP3 player is quite different
    from making a copy to put up on a P2P network. So, if they can
    establish that his ripping was for the purpose of sharing, his fair use
    argument goes out the door, and then they have him for massive copyright
    infringement, regardless of whether or not anyone actually grabbed the
    files from him over whatever P2P service he was using.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    On Dec 31, 12:25 pm, Kier wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:08:44 -0800, ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    > >
    > > ...the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    > > further: ...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 [against an individual named
    > > Howell], 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.
    > > ad_icon

    >
    > > "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.

    >
    > > [Murky legality of copying CDs to your computer...]

    >
    > > 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....

    >
    > > 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.
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/12/28/AR200...

    >
    > These loons need their heads examining. What planet do they live on? Do
    > they think they can make criminals of the entire population?
    >
    > --
    > Kier


    No, these loons need to be sentenced to a minimum of 50 years of hard
    labor in a federal prison for terrorism (and they ARE terrorists; they
    are terrorizing citizens).....preferably in a re-opened Alcatraz.

  6. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    On 2008-01-01, Darth Chaos claimed:
    > On Dec 31, 12:25 pm, Kier wrote:
    >> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:08:44 -0800, ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:


    >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/12/28/AR200...

    >>
    >> These loons need their heads examining. What planet do they live on? Do
    >> they think they can make criminals of the entire population?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kier

    >
    > No, these loons need to be sentenced to a minimum of 50 years of hard
    > labor in a federal prison for terrorism (and they ARE terrorists; they
    > are terrorizing citizens).....preferably in a re-opened Alcatraz.


    I think there are some available rooms at Club Gitmo.

    --
    You will pay for your sins. If you have already paid, please disregard
    this message.

  7. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    ____/ Darth Chaos on Tuesday 01 January 2008 02:48 : \____

    > On Dec 31, 12:25 pm, Kier wrote:
    >> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:08:44 -0800, ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >> >
    >> > ...the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    >> > further: ...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 [against an individual named
    >> > Howell], 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.
    >> > ad_icon

    >>
    >> > "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.

    >>
    >> > [Murky legality of copying CDs to your computer...]

    >>
    >> > 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....

    >>
    >> > 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.
    >> >

    >>
    >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/12/28/AR200...

    >>
    >> These loons need their heads examining. What planet do they live on? Do
    >> they think they can make criminals of the entire population?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kier

    >
    > No, these loons need to be sentenced to a minimum of 50 years of hard
    > labor in a federal prison for terrorism (and they ARE terrorists; they
    > are terrorizing citizens).....preferably in a re-opened Alcatraz.


    One of these guys (Dan Glickman was his name, IIRC) actaully uses words
    like "criminals". Calling copyright infringers (some of who are 12) "pirates"
    was apparently a demonisation not effective enough.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz \ Switch to GNU/Linux. Visit http://www.getgnulinux.org/
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    04:00:01 up 21 days, 16:48, 4 users, load average: 0.73, 1.02, 1.52
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  8. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    ____/ Roy Schestowitz on Tuesday 01 January 2008 04:04 : \____

    > (some of who are 12)


    s/who/whom/

    I really should stop (proof)reading my posts after sending...

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows O/S: chmod a-x internet; kill -9 internet
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    08:00:01 up 21 days, 20:48, 4 users, load average: 0.82, 1.04, 1.85
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  9. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > That's not actually correct. What they are arguing in that case is that
    > if you rip a CD and place the ripped copies in your P2P shared folders,
    > then they are unauthorized copies. They are *NOT* arguing the ripping
    > per se is illegal. Go read the article on this on Slashdot, and you'll
    > find cites to their court filings, if you want the details about what
    > they are claiming.
    >
    > (And you'll find cites to where the RIAA has stated, before the Supreme
    > Court, that ripping to use on a portable player is NOT illegal).


    Their representatives still call it "stealing", though.

    --
    Tux rox!

  10. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    * Kelton fired off this tart reply:

    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>
    >> ...the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    >> further: ...the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who
    >> has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

    >
    > So does this mean that RIAA will be suing Microsoft for building the
    > ripping feature into Microsoft Windows?


    Ah, but it is a /crippled/ ripping.

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    Gordon wrote:
    >
    > Particularly as it's a standard clause in most software EULAs to be able to
    > make a copy of the software for backup purposes - what's the difference
    > between an Office suite CD and a music CD?


    Archival copying is specifically allowed under copyright law, and there
    is even existing case law in support of space shifting of content
    (which personal CD ripping falls under). I think you will find this
    is a scare/bargaining tactic and they back down before actually taking
    any of these claims to trial. Of course I am not a lawyer, don't take
    this as legal advice.... bla bla bla.

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  12. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    On 2008-01-01, Linonut claimed:
    > * Kelton fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>>
    >>> ...the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step
    >>> further: ...the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who
    >>> has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

    >>
    >> So does this mean that RIAA will be suing Microsoft for building the
    >> ripping feature into Microsoft Windows?

    >
    > Ah, but it is a /crippled/ ripping.


    Then they should sue to cripple MS.

    --
    I can handle pain until it hurts.

  13. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    On Jan 1, 10:58 am, tha...@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    > > Particularly as it's a standard clause in most software EULAs to be able to
    > > make a copy of the software for backup purposes - what's the difference
    > > between an Office suite CD and a music CD?

    >
    > Archival copying is specifically allowed under copyright law, and there
    > is even existing case law in support of space shifting of content
    > (which personal CD ripping falls under). I think you will find this
    > is a scare/bargaining tactic and they back down before actually taking
    > any of these claims to trial. Of course I am not a lawyer, don't take
    > this as legal advice.... bla bla bla.


    That is until the Supreme Court reverses its old precedent when a
    "arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for ripping legally-purchased CDs
    for personal use and archive" case inevitably comes before them.

    And with the ever-increasing political power of the recording industry
    when you consider how they blatantly bribe politicians to serve their
    every whim, that will probably eventually happen.

    It will be interesting to see where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice
    Alito will stand on this issue, being Bush appointees. And I figure
    President Hillary will most likely seek a replacement for Ginsburg (I
    figure Ginsburg will retire during Hillary's first term).

  14. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    [H]omer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Darth Chaos spake thusly:
    >> On Jan 1, 10:13 pm, "[H]omer" wrote:

    >
    >>> As for right-wing extremist American laws like the DMCA, that's a
    >>> different matter, and (fortunately) completely irrelevant to me.
    >>> That's another disease that should be on the Supreme Court's squish
    >>> list.

    >>
    >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the DMCA was a bipartisan attack co-
    >> authored by "left wing" Patrick Leahy (Democrat) and "right wing"
    >> Orrin Hatch (Republican), and your "leftist" "heroes" such as Pelosi
    >> want to strengthen copyright laws because their Hollywood and Silicon
    >> Valley funders pay them to do so.

    >
    > I was referring to the political ideals that drive the inception of such
    > laws, not the pseudo-left politicians and campaigners who instigate them
    > for reasons that defy traditional left-wing values. AFAICT there are not
    > any true left-wingers in the US at all; the so-called Democrats are just
    > a marginally less extreme form of Republicans. Exactly the same thing as
    > what happened in the UK when the socialist Labour party became the "New"
    > Labour party. Like the US, the UK now only has *one* political party ...
    > the fascists. They're represented by two factions that ostensibly appear
    > to compete, but *actually* represent exactly the same political ideals -
    > everything else is branded "fringe" politics, and its supporters branded
    > "loons". In this way, the electorate are fooled into believing they have
    > a choice, that the democratic process is still alive and well, that they
    > control who democratically represents the people; but the reality is the
    > complete opposite, as the attendees at Bilderberg know only too well.
    >


    The illusion of choice in the absence of choice has become fundamental
    to our current economy, from the "how would you like your egg cooked"
    (it remains an egg!) to which right-wing party would you like to vote
    for, or which Microsoft/BBC iPlayer would you like to use on which
    version of Microsoft Windows Vista.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  15. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    [H]omer espoused:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
    >
    >> The illusion of choice in the absence of choice has become
    >> fundamental to our current economy

    >
    > Indeed, the self-proclaimed "elite" have poisoned society with this
    > "choice is bad" indoctrination, to the extent where it is gradually
    > becoming impossible to lead a normal life. This is then exacerbated
    > by so-called academics who support such theories, fuel the hysteria,
    > then produce/endorse studies that negatively impact consumer choice.
    >
    > Take Barry Schwartz, whose "choice is bad" lectures have apparently
    > convinced retailers like Tesco to consolidate product ranges to the
    > point where most traditional (i.e. good) brands have disappeared in
    > favour of tasteless, unbranded, genetically-modified, cheap garbage;
    > produced by slave labour in the third world. Who does that benefit?
    > Certainly not the consumer, nor the exploited slaves?
    >
    > And this is not mere speculation, since Schwartz has actually cited
    > Tesco as one of his "success" stories; and as a long-standing Tesco
    > customer, I can tell you that the choices are becoming rather bleak,
    > in terms of grocery goods at least.


    Interestingly, I think that things are not going so well for Tesco at
    the moment. Sainsbury seem to be on the rise again, and Morrisons are
    coming in hard, too. I'm not sure that everyone is as unsophisticated
    as Mr Schwartz would like.

    >
    > If "choice is bad" then naturally that implies that "monopolies are
    > good", which is precisely the ideology that the "elite" are all too
    > eager to propagate, since they believe they have exclusive right to
    > the world's resources. Like satanic chipmunks they hoard as much as
    > they can, killing to obtain it if necessary, so they can gorge them
    > -selves on it in the bleak winter to come; a metaphorical winter of
    > their own creation - induced because the landscape is now bereft of
    > those very resources that they now hoard. So what make the hoarders
    > believe they have such a right? Nothing but selfishness, malice and
    > greed.
    >
    > Presumably Schwartz gleefully looks forward to the dystopian future,
    > where the whole planet is owned and controlled by just one man, who
    > starkly polarises society into the elite and their slaves. Will the
    > future ruler of our planet be crowned Caesar, I wonder, or CEO.
    >


    The game he's playing has only one winner and lots of losers. Whilst
    this is often touted as the major advantage of capitalism, in that it
    promotes competition in order to be the winner, it does have the
    interesting side-effect that there's usually only one Gold medal spot.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  16. Re: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

    ____/ [H]omer on Friday 04 January 2008 20:55 : \____

    > Take Barry Schwartz, whose "choice is bad" lectures have apparently
    > convinced retailers like Tesco to consolidate product ranges to the
    > point where most traditional (i.e. good) brands have disappeared in
    > favour of tasteless, unbranded, genetically-modified, cheap garbage;
    > produced by slave labour in the third world. Who does that benefit?
    > Certainly not the consumer, nor the exploited slaves?


    Choice is bad, eh? Thanks for identifying another member of the stooges club.
    (Oh, and welcome to the New World Order)

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Far away from home, robots build people"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    03:00:04 up 25 days, 15:48, 4 users, load average: 1.25, 0.91, 1.09
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

+ Reply to Thread