I cordially invite the RIAA to feast on my penis

[Bushmeister]

This is going straight into the WTF Zone:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122800693.html

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

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.

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.

[Cactus Drags]

lol, America.

[NobBe Nobbs]

I concur. lol, america.

[Gabriel]

The point stated near the end of the article, that says that consumers are looking more to independent companies and less to the big record companies, is something I've been saying for years.

The industry says that sales are down, and I won't argue that the sales for the bigger companies are very likely in a tumble. That isn't to say though that sales as a whole are down, because file sharing has allowed more music to become available to more people, and as such, artists who are producing music that the consumers enjoy more, are finding that they are selling more albums.

Just because Top 40 Records has the bigger mainstream successes, doesn't mean that Independent Records doesn't have equally good (or even better) musical acts. Where Britney Spears may be losing sales, I still believe that a band like The Fright, or 45 Grave, are gaining sales because their music has been shared, allowing a whole new group of people to hear it.

[sirdavinator]

It appears they don't want people to own computers anymore, because THEY'LL DEFINITELY DOWNLOAD MUSIC ON IT, OH YES, WE MUST CONFISCATE ALL COMPUTERS!

lol, America.

[Herr Matzat]

now the fun thing is

it’s a big mistake to equate the major labels and their plastic disc business with the industry as a whole. Indeed, when you stand back and look at all of music, things don’t look so bad at all.

Indeed, it appears that every single part of the music industry except the sale of compact discs is up.

- Concerts and merchandise: UP (+4%)

- Digital tracks: UP (+46%)

- Ringtones: UP (+86% last year, but probably just single-digit percent this year)

- Licensing for commercials, TV shows, movies and videogames: UP (Warner Music saw licensing grow by about $20 million over the past year)

- Even vinyl singles (think DJs): UP (more than doubled in the UK)

- And, if you include the iPod in the music industry, as I’d argue a fair-minded analysis would: UP, UP, UP! (+31% this year)

Only CDs are down (-18%). They’re around 60% of the industry not including the MP3 players, but just around 25% if you do include them.

So the problem with the music labels is not that music is an industry in decline, but that they have a too-narrow view of what business they’re in.

[Sweet Clyde]

But to copy songs(s) from a CD to a computer, you would need a program for that, yes? So why, or when are they, going to go after Microsoft/Dell/Sony for writing software that could be used ''illegally"? Or go after said companies for making DVD burners, cause DVD's have music in them, and music = songs, so thats bad, m'kay!

Edited January 18, 2008 by Mind Games 96

[Bushmeister]

But to copy songs(s) from a CD to a computer, you would need a program for that, yes? So why, or when are they, going to go after to go after Microsoft/Dell/Sony for writing software that could be used ''illegally"? Or go after said companies for making DVD burners, cause DVD have music in them, and music = songs, so thats bad, m'kay!

[Colly]

This is going straight into the WTF Zone:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122800693.html

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.

[Gabriel]

This is going straight into the WTF Zone:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122800693.html

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.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Gabriel Havok

[Vendetta]

I download alot of CDs..illegally, and I listen to them...If I don't listen to the ENTIRE cd..or Most of the CD...I delete it..And If I like the ENTIRE CD then not only do I keep it, but I'll go out and buy the album.

[gunnar hendershow]

I download alot of CDs..illegally, and I listen to them...If I don't listen to the ENTIRE cd..or Most of the CD...I delete it..And If I like the ENTIRE CD then not only do I keep it, but I'll go out and buy the album.

I sometimes go out and buy the album. But I very regularly will go to their concerts and buy their merchandise.

[Cactus Drags]

Why not let the downloads happen, and make available and printable version of the insert booklet with advertisments inside? The companies that buy the ad space would then be in essence, paying for all of the albums that people have downloaded instead of physically purchased.

[Gabriel]

Why not let the downloads happen, and make available and printable version of the insert booklet with advertisments inside? The companies that buy the ad space would then be in essence, paying for all of the albums that people have downloaded instead of physically purchased.

That is possibly the stupidest solution to the filesharing issue I have ever read.

[Herr Matzat]

In a move that would mark the end of a digital music era, Sony BMG Music Entertainment is finalizing plans to sell songs without the copyright protection software that has long restricted the use of music downloaded from the Internet, BusinessWeek.com has learned. […] Details of Sony BMG’s plans are expected to emerge in the coming weeks. Justin Timberlake, the popular recording artist signed to the Sony-owned Jive label, is participating in a Super Bowl promotion with Pepsi (PEP) that will kick off Feb. 3 and offer free distribution of 1 billion songs from major labels, including Sony BMG, through Amazon’s DRM-free download service, according to a person familiar with the matter. Sony has been experimenting with DRM-free songs for about six months.

[stokeriño]

But to copy songs(s) from a CD to a computer, you would need a program for that, yes? So why, or when are they, going to go after to go after Microsoft/Dell/Sony for writing software that could be used ''illegally"? Or go after said companies for making DVD burners, cause DVD have music in them, and music = songs, so thats bad, m'kay!

Hell, I like your idea there, but I don't think that would be enough. The only way to stop music piracy once and for all is to go for the ultimate source: after all, aren't the ARTISTS responsible for creating the music in the first place, thus making it open for anyone to just record and pirate away? Sue the artists, that's the ticket.

I just want to see the court case, based on the CD-ripping capabilities of Windows Media Player, bundled with every Windows computer:

THE RIAA VERSUS MICROSOFT

It would be epic.

Edited January 4, 2008 by stokeriño

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

*VERSUS

[IAceI]

No, it's a poem, keep up ¬_¬

[Cactus Drags]

Why not let the downloads happen, and make available and printable version of the insert booklet with advertisments inside? The companies that buy the ad space would then be in essence, paying for all of the albums that people have downloaded instead of physically purchased.

That is possibly the stupidest solution to the filesharing issue I have ever read.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Why not let the downloads happen, and make available and printable version of the insert booklet with advertisments inside? The companies that buy the ad space would then be in essence, paying for all of the albums that people have downloaded instead of physically purchased.

That is possibly the stupidest solution to the filesharing issue I have ever read.

Because you don't want to be reading the lyrics to something and have a Pepsi ad below them?