More RIAA nonsense...

[theprez98]

Full article

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.

Clearly, the RIAA is trying to trample anything resembling fair use!

[Thorn]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Full article

Clearly, the RIAA is trying to trample anything resembling fair use!

That's the stupidest thing the RIAA has done thus far. IMHO, a legal case can be made against those who share files, whether by copying them to a blank CD and giving that to a friend, or sharing it on the I'net. However, in the past the fair use principal has allowed people to make personal copies that weren't redistributed to a third party.

The article sums up the whole problem quite succinctly:

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.

It's true, and also ironic that they are clinging to their old model when you consider that the last time a new technology (commercial radio) severely impacted the music industry, the industry as a whole co-opted the technology and turned it into a mass marketing tool. You think they'd have learned from their own success, and would have dealt with this a lot better.

[theprez98]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

I almost quoted the same sentence as it does very nicely sum up their entire strategy.

The whole idea of ripping a CD that you own to your own computer without doing anything else, being called illegal, just shows how desperate the RIAA has become.

[xor]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

People know how I feel about RIAA here. Being a Drexel student I saw first hand what RIAA is all about. First, how did they even find out that this guy had 2000 songs on his hard drive? That scares me. What really scares me is that they may actually have a case and the ramifications if they win. Is it actually even enforceable? What next the computer police? Everyone has to use thin clients and Google app's(yucky). You could make an argument that hard drives can store music so they are an instrument of crime just like radar detectors are illegal in some states. Where does it stop?

thx-1138

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

i loved how Beetle mentioned this phenomenon in his keynote at TC9. "the RIAA's actions sure stopped some people from downloading music... from home."

it's interesting, but i am a product of that phenomenon. i do most of my downloading of music when i'm searching for a quick song (i don't tend to download many MP3s, especially since OiNK vanished) either remotely or through tunneled connections. television programs and films, however, i still grab from the home connection. maybe this means the RIAA's fear campaign is affecting me somewhat?

if anyone has the time to spare, consider checking out "Steal this Film"... parts one and two are out there on the intertubes. look for torrents of them. i have them downloaded and am considering watching them today, along with the two tiger team eps. grr, busy life... viewing of the few things i care about gets backed up.

[astcell]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

When movies came out on VHS, it was not right away. You can buy blank tapes and record TV shows but not buy Apocalypse Now. You had to wait until it was on TV. Then when movies came out on VHS they were $79 - $99. Some of the really bad movies were $29. I worked at Werehouse Records at the time and the movie stock was very small. Eventually renting was the way folks went. Not many bought.

Of course, the movie industry freaked out.

Today, they NEED those VHS and DVD sales. They had wanted them banned.

The difference here is that those who are the middlemen in the music industry will lose their jobs. Songs are extremely portable and can copy fast. Ripping a DVD or VHS is a PITA. Carrying a DVD around it still a good way to possess that medium.

What you are seeing is an industry who realizes they are no longer needed. They will soon join the elevator operators, TV Repairmen, and local telco operators in oblivion. It's their death song.

The judges on the bench can relate to music being sold as records and tapes. They can imagine CDs. Okay maybe some are not that old. But you do not see very many elevator operators filing suit saying that only they can push the button, there needs to be a person in between the shopper and the elevator. And no shopper is bringing suit for not having elevator operators in stores.

Hey Mr. RIAA guy. Go back to college, quick. Don't be the last one out, jobs will be hard to find then!

[Greyhatter]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Gee I get audio and video from any "UTube" type site for free. I use a UTube converter and change the converted file to an .flv. Have used a .flv viewer to play back these vid files stored on my HD for a long time. I have a program that can also strip the audio from the video so I can burn it to CD for the car. The audio ain't that great but on some old "real old" stuff like the Platters and further back so what. This is all for personal use and unshared. I'm lost.. Have I done something wrong here? Should I look over my shoulder now too? I've made no profit here. No harm no foul? Just wondering.

Concerning Jeffrey Howell I thought once you purchased any CD media rights you were legally allowed 1 backup copy for personal use only. So (for example) if I want my music in my house and in my car it's ok? Or if I want to put my CD's on my HD that could be considered my second copy as long as I had no other? Just the laws on this stuff seem mystical to me.

[xor]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Gee I get audio and video from any "UTube" type site for free. I use a UTube converter and change the converted file to an .flv. Have used a .flv viewer to play back these vid files stored on my HD for a long time. I have a program that can also strip the audio from the video so I can burn it to CD for the car. The audio ain't that great but on some old "real old" stuff like the Platters and further back so what. This is all for personal use and unshared. I'm lost.. Have I done something wrong here? Should I look over my shoulder now too? I've made no profit here. No harm no foul? Just wondering.

Concerning Jeffrey Howell I thought once you purchased any CD media rights you were legally allowed 1 backup copy for personal use only. So (for example) if I want my music in my house and in my car it's ok? Or if I want to put my CD's on my HD that could be considered my second copy as long as I had no other?

Yes, you have made profit. By not paying the owner of the rights to that media their pound of flesh.

xor

[Greyhatter]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Yes, you have made profit. By not paying the owner of the rights to that media their pound of flesh.

Isn't that interesting xor. So anything I record off the FM stereo or TV must also apply here. Who among us has never done that? We're all guilty for a pound or more of flesh to be ponied up. Would be nice to see a survey on this particular issue in forum.

[theprez98]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Actually, the courts have determined that recording a tv show (via VHS, or Tivo, etc) to watch later is legal.

[TheCotMan]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

Limiting my comments to legal-specific issues, and not politics:

Copyright law has historically allowed for exceptions:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

(Emphasis in bold, is my own.)

title17, 92, chapter1, section 107

(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if —

(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and

(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.

For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

Library or Archive is not defined in the definitions section.

The above could be stronger if an individual's personal "Media Library" can be included as a library in this legal section.

Playing a major role will likely be title 17, 92, chapter 1, section 107:

otwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The above may be included in part of a defense. Where would they go?

(1) Seems unclear in this case. Though it is not for commercial use, it would be difficult to have people believe that the intended use was educational. Non-profit might be enough, but it seems the above language has included non-profit as a necessary and sufficient requirement to be joined with educational purposes.

At this point, case law would probably be cited.

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work .. Music, purchased for entertainment, transferred to another format for continued personal entertainment.

(3) Entire songs were converted. Not really part of a defense, though if entire audio CD were not converted, just songs, it could play a tiny role. Mostly likely, they wouldn't spend much time on this part in court. (Choose your battles wisely.)

(4) The recording industry will likely whine and moan about this. "We sell this online in different markets. The consumer's decision to transfer our original product to another format, in another market where we sell that format causes us financial loss, as they are not paying us for the same entertainment in the new format. This is hurting us! Make it stop!" (Nobody being quoted, just a guess on a summary of what might be claimed.)

A very good outcome of this case (for consumers) would be if, for the purposes of copyright law, any persons' personal library could count as an archive or library. (Library seems to come up in the document to suggest a public library, or institution more than something owned by a single person.)

How widely is the term "Media Library" applied to collections of converted audio or video? Do these STB (Set Top Boxes) that act as media concentrators include the name "Library" or "archive" in any part of their operation? Does the act of organizing songs by artist, label, title count as a form of "Electronic Catalog" of items in a library? (Consider Library Online Public Access Catalogs or Card Catalogs)

The meaning of words, and how they are defined through time can change the way laws are read, interpreted or applied. Consider the definition of the word, "pornography," and how it has changed with time based on how the population thinks it should be applied or attributed to content.

[Greyhatter]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

(4) The recording industry will likely whine and moan about this. "We sell this online in different markets. The consumer's decision to transfer our original product to another format, in another market where we sell that format causes us financial loss, as they are not paying us for the same entertainment in the new format. This is hurting us! Make it stop!"

Too bad. After purchasing the music it is still not ours? Ok, I make a copy of the original music work I purchased and break the origional beyond repair am I within my rights to own the copy? With regard to Microsoft most of us know we never own the OS we purchased... We are purchasing a license to use but NEVER own it.. Oddly, we do have a right to a backup of that leased software. Is this what happens in the music industry? Are we leasing it or owning it? We can only own it with restrictions? Then it seems like a lease to me. Again all this seems like mystical law to me. That I must buy a second copy of "Twilite Time" to have in my car after buying a copy for my home seems ludacris. This is the way we make these plebs into Cesars and we all know what happened to Rome.

[astcell]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

What about when I was a kid and had to sit by the stereo, waiting for my song to come on, hope I had enough room on my tape to get it all, and hope the phone did not ring or the DJ did not talk so that I could get the whole song recorded on the first try, and if I didn't, I had to wait until they played the song again? Did I just confess?

[theprez98]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

What about when I was a kid and had to sit by the stereo, waiting for my song to come on, hope I had enough room on my tape to get it all, and hope the phone did not ring or the DJ did not talk so that I could get the whole song recorded on the first try, and if I didn't, I had to wait until they played the song again? Did I just confess?

You're Guilty!

[Greyhatter]

Re: More RIAA nonsense...

As charged!

When you copy from radio to tape you did not buy the tune and as Xor said pony up some skin. Tell me where that's different than what I siphon off Utube minus my pound of flesh? I record off the Internet what you recorded off the radio for free. By the way I can say I don't miss the days waiting by the radio to "get it" minus the distractions or even pressing play when I forgot to press record. I can remember those DJ's exceled at talking into to start and ending of each tune so we never got a "pure" recording. I'll bet the recording industry "forced" stations DJ's to do that (using lawyers) just to keep sales up.