RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it
By Nilay Patel 
posted Dec 30th 2007 12:16PM
posted Dec 30th 2007 12:16PM
Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?
In Canada copying music including P2P is legal. Not video, just music. The recording industry in cooperation with the Canadian Government agency responsible "tax" blank recording media, and more recently the tools and appliances used to copy, transport and house music. The money collected is then distributed to the artists. I would like to emphasize "to the artists" This non adversarial approach along with our universal health care, is what makes Canada great.
This story is still not be reported correctly. The court briefing states that copying a CD to a computer in MP3 format and putting it in their shared KAZA folder is what made the copies illegal.
sony, disney and fox are the leading companies pushing propertarian, orwellian, anti consumer DRM lockouts and have the most lobbyists pushing congress to tighten the IP laws (DMCA), abolish fair use, criminalise ppl that use or even own software to circumnavigate any form of DRM and protect them from law suits when they run code on ppl's computers that cause damage and threaten your privacy by reporting information back to sony HQ about your computer usage (google: sony xcp).
sony, disney and fox are the MPAA they use piracy to scare monger ppl then make DRM secuROM, xcp and sell it to movie/game/cd makers and get paid from all sides and get fat while its the consumers that lose out as we are told we are pirates by sony for wanting to play our legally purchased cd's on our ipods because sony want 1 licence per device per user to quadruple their profits from each household, kinda like the military industrial complex.
sry to disappoint you but according to sony copying your cd's to your mp3 player is stealing!
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
FTA: Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" October 02, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
Right, the brief does say that placing the MP3s in a directory known to be shared with the general public is de facto copyright violation, but:
The brief also has language that states a compressed digital MP3 copy of the song (which was provided uncompressed on an audio CD) is an unauthorized copy. The distinction is critical, because if the judge confirms in his summary motion, then this *could* become case law that is referenced elsewhere.
So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be.
Of course, I'm just speculating, but the industry's lawyers may be gearing up to say, in effect, the following:
You can buy an audio CD and copy it as a backup audio CD (for example, to play in your car because you know that your car CD player "eats" discs), but you may not convert it into an MP3 because that transcoding into a new media format is not authorized by the copyright holder. If you want it in MP3 (or other audio format), you must buy it that way through their authorized distribution network (iTunes, etc.).
This is dangerous... very dangerous...
Any IP attorneys want to chime in?
EDR229: "So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be."
The courts have pretty regularly frowned upon the "but the bits are different!" defense in other cases, so that wouldn't be very consistent. They don't like dealing in technicalities when it comes to copyright. They've made it clear that the content is what counts, not the underlying data. The underlying data is just semantics.
There *is* existing case law that says that copying from CD to tape for personal use is legal. That's been tested; in fact, the RIAA has to *admit* it was legal, that was part of the agreement. I don't really see how ripping to mp3 is any different in the eyes of the court; certainly copying a CD to analog tape is not preserving the "bit structure" of the CD.
That's the essential allegation in every single p2p case -- I represent RIAA defendants. What's new here is the RIAA's claim that ripping a CD constitutes making an "unauthorized copy." Even still, it's not suing him for that, just for sharing.
The RIAA know what they are doing. If they wanna file a lawsuit, they know they are gonna win it, otherwise they would save their time and do something else.. The compyright laws are all clear and stated all over the music stores.. People can't win in court using the negligence argument anymore.. and people should not blame the RIAA really, they should blame the lawyers employed by RIAA. They pick the "victems" the RIAA just gives them the approval. What should be argued here is that the punishment surpasses the "crime" by lets say "alot". charging 750 dollars for one illegally obtained song is itself a crime.
They don't care about winning the lawsuit, they care about ruining the people who they are suing, in order to teach 'em a lesson. No matter WHO wins, the victim is going to be out lots of money, and the RIAA is rich enough that they won't. It's just bullying really.
"the punishment surpasses the 'crime' by lets say 'alot'."
Alot is a town in India. There is not other use for a word called "alot". So, the punishment surpasses the crime by, let's say, a small town in India?? I'm confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alot
@ John B:
You could have made your comment much shorter, saved yourself sometime and impressment if you just noted the typo... Usually when idiots try to be smart, and boring people try to be funny disasters can happen. Thank God nothing major happened when you replied to my comment.
Citrico, imagine you worked hard for years to produce some software which you were hoping to sell to make a living off. Now imagine everyone pirated your software instead of paying for it and after devoting a lot of time and effort to the project you ended up bankrupt. Would you think that was fair? Wouldn't you want to sue the people who stole your software so you could get some remuneration for your hard work? Clearly you would, so why are you so aggrieved with the RIAA do the same thing?
You say “the victim is going to be out lots of money, and the RIAA is rich enough that they won't”. If someone stole your work you'd no doubt be furious but when it's the RIAA it's okay because they're rich? Does that mean you believe rich people or organisations shouldn't be entitled to justice, and the poor deserve to be protected by the law? Your moral standards seem rather inconsistent.
Charles,
You argue that if you "worked hard for years to produce some software" you would be pissed if someone distributed it without paying you. Then you make a logical jump from that to saying that the RIAA is justified in being pissed about mp3 downloading.
Exactly what did the RIAA "work hard for years to produce" ? I have never heard of the RIAA producing anything except lawsuits.
Dan, the RIAA represents the artist who produced the music. Do you think that because there are organisations in the distribution chain between the artist and the customer (i.e. publishers and the RIAA) that you're not still stealing from the artists who produced the music?
To go back to the analogy of you developing your own software for sale, it's like getting a publisher to handle distribution and marketing for you. Just because there's now an organisation in between you and the customer doesn't mean that you wouldn't still be left penniless if everyone pirated your software.
From what I see this whole “fuck the RIAA” attitude stems from the fact that people are pirating music and are pissed off that an organisation is out to catch them. They try and justify their theft by saying they're stealing from the mega-rich RIAA but they're still stealing indirectly from the artists. It might be your opinion that music is over priced, and while that may be true it doesn't give your the justification to steal.
I really don't understand the hatred towards the RIAA. Granted they say some really stupid stuff but they only ever go after people who are illegally stealing music and I can't see how anyone can have any sympathy for thieves.
I'd have to argue when you say that the RIAA "represents the artists"
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/trent-reznor-te.html
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/trent-reznor-es.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/11/MN12066.DTL
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm
http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/industrypractices.php
this right here is a choice quote.
Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.
"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.
If the RIAA really represented the artists, do you think that they would make so little off each record? It seems to me that the RIAA does not in fact represent the artists, but bullies them, tells them what to do and how to act, and reaps the lions share of sales.
After reading all those links, I defy you to tell me that the RIAA "represents" the artists.
and no, not everyone thats interested in this story is a music theif. What happens is that when the RIAA says that ripping cds is illegal, it basically means even if you have legally purchased your music, the RIAA may see it fit in the future to sue you if you have ripped any cd. This amounts to telling people that unless they purchase their materials twice, that they're theives. So even if you buy cds from them, they still consider you a criminal?
How does suing little old ladies who don't own computers protect anyone? How do superfluous lawsuits help the artists in any way? Do the artists even see one cent of the money the RIAA gets from these bullying tactics? If I rip a CD I buy onto my computer into a folder which isn't shared with anyone (and that is what I do), why would the artist object in any way?
The RIAA is interested in protecting the RIAA, artists be damned.
Citrico, you're wrong. Each defendant is carefully picked based on their financial situation, with most or all not able to afford an attorney.
It's a good strategy if you: Want to intimidate the defendant into settling, or create your own case law for future use by adding language, knowing that it will either be overlooked by an incompetent attorney (a defendant representing themselves) or ignored because of a summary judgment.
The RIAA does NOT represent artists. The RIAA represents the recording industry -- specifically the major record labels. That hardly qualifies as representing artists.
The RIAA's sole purpose is to lobby on behalf of major corporations. The same corporations that have systematically ripped off artists since the beginning of recorded music.
Both alot and a lot are proper use. Alot is a less common and older usage but not incorrect.
You internet pedants crack me up.
@mike:
I don't care whether I impressed anyone or not, nor do I care if my message got a "Low Ranked" or not.
The introduction of "alot" as a replacement for "a lot" is wrong (don't give me any "language is always evolving" crap) and is way, way too common. I would expect it on Digg, but it's even creeping its way into Slashdot and the regular Engadget.
So, quite frankly, its misuse is so common anymore that there is no longer any way to tell whether it's a typo or an intentional misuse.
@tcc3:
Name a few reputable dictionaries that acknowledge that, please. And, no, Urban Dictionary is not one of them.
Doesn't mean the RIAA doesn't still suck. I say nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure that the lecherous bastards don't continue this "business model".
if we all stop saying riaa and call them who they actually are, maybe ppl's opinions about the a$$hole companies will be a deciding factor in their purchases!
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
heheh.. was thinking that same thing! :-) Good one :-)
I'm surprised Engadget got caught in this much-ado-about-nothing-story... DailyTech made the exact same mistake weeks ago.
The law doesn't really understand digital copying technology, digital audio players or anything else for that matter.
All these laws are there simply to put more money in the pockets of "some people" and to create jobs (how many people do you think the RIAA employs?)
To hell with that... I got a special laptop with wifi and I not only download from Limewire and any other file-sharing system I can... but I DO IT by WIJACKING !
The RIAA are like big oil and big pharma, they'll screw anyone and anything just to make an extra buck. Alas, the government is more than happy to comply with their demands.
Just want to let the RIAA know that ever since these lawsuits started, I haven't bought a CD since! (Well, the exception is Dave Matthews Band, but that's 'cause they're not greedy bastards like some corporations that I know!)
Sorry to burst your bubble, Marvin.
http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ArtistSearch&keyword=Dave+Matthews+Band
While Dave Matthews might seem like a swell guy, his record label is very much part of the RIAA. Your money is going straight into the pockets of those greedy corporations -- and Dave gets his nickel for each album sold.
woah... thanks for the heads up!
I'll just stop buying CDs all together, lol.
what I do not understand is - why is there still very few groups that have on-line stores, where people could buy MP3/CD/DVD and bypass thouse RIAA wankers? do contracts with studios put handcoffs on their hands?
Sometime I would like to buy directly from a group, so that I could express my appretiation for their good job... going, and buying their album from a store.. well... then instead of 10$ I'd be willing to pay, group would get 1$ (less? moree?) - and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
I don't understand why the RIAA doesn't just make it illegal to even listen to music??!
It seems thats the directions there headed in...
Because that wouldn't make them any money.
sure it would! think of all the money they could make from the lawsuits!
@ glomph
you're analogy doesnt hold too well. You're telling me that if someone painted a picture, they'd give it to you for free?
If people made music for free how would you get it? The artist would pay the cost to host a server so you could get free music? I highly doubt that. Most musicians are rich because they made music. They dont make music because they are rich.
I know some people who do the garage band thing but they dont get together and write songs everyday. They get together on occassion to jam recreationally about once a month. You'd be lucky to get three good songs a year out of them.
And well, buying music doesnt mean supporting the RIAA. What if I buy indy or non RIAA member cds?
@ larry
I'm not going to subsidize your illegal activity. Just because you can get away with something doesnt make it moral.
@ seoultrain.
my music drawer has $600 worth of cds. if you cant afford it then ask your friends to buy it for you for xmas etc. Just cause your ipod can hold 160 gigs worth of music doesnt mean you're required to use 160 gigs. realistically my favorite songs occupy 2 gigs tops. I cant imagine someone saying that they regularly listen to or even enjoy more than 30% of the songs on their ipod. Most ipod owners do the whole pod surfing thing. you know, pressing next 12 times and listening to one song, then pressing next 12 more times to get to another song they like.
I don't understand where you got all of those assumptions from, I don't steal music and I think that it is wrong yes, but I really can't see why music can't be a little more simple.. you buy a cd and you can do what ever you would like with it except upload it to public channels (aka limewire)
In fact if I remember correctly album prices were going to be slashed in two when all music was being sold on CD's because of the cost to produce a CD vs a cassette tape, did that ever happen??
If they would use logic rather than being like the IRS they would actually get somewhere.
Say an album was only $6 I think anyone might reconsider pirating when they could get all of those tracks along with a shinny new CD.
honestly... who buys music anymore?
I think downloading music illegally IS the classic form of stealing. Yeah the record labels and RIAA are douschebags and are making WAY too much money for what they are doing, but I think it means more to an artist than just a nickel (or dollar or whatever it is that is their cut) when you buy their cd, it shows support, and it shows that you want them to progress. Granted, I think the best way to give an artist their well deserved money is to see them in concert and/or buy their merchandise.
The people that download all this music illegally are just being immature and naive. If they (you Larry) can't see that what they are doing is stealing, them society (and your parents) have probably not done too good of a job teaching you morals.
Sorry if there were any spelling or grammatical errors.
You sir, are an idiot.
hes an idiot for wanting to support people for the work they do?
if everyone stole music there'd be no music. The artists would stop making music because they needed to make ends meet and we'd be in a musicless world because everyone wanted to be a cheapass.
If you want to support a band, buy their merchandise or go to their concert. Buying their CD might make them, what, a quarter?
@metal
"if everyone stole music there'd be no music."
I object.
I know plenty of people that make music with no intention of getting paid for records, of course there would still be music, just no commercialized music. I mean people paint pictures with no intention of selling them, the same applies.
The point is, most of the money made if I buy music doesn't go to the artist it goes to a bureaucratic system that sues people.
I live in the uk and i download everything and consider myself very lucky to be out of range of these money grubbing bastards. but after i download a movie or a tv show or an album that i enjoy, i buy it. i buy it because i love supporting artists that produce quality art and i love having a little piece of plastic that makes me not a criminal. but if i hear a bit of an album and download it and hate it then i just delete it because it isnt worth my appreciation or time. when i first got my ipod mini loads of years ago i went round my friends and just dumped his whole music collection onto it. then i started buying out all the parts i liked and deleting the rest until, as of last week i have 1000 songs that i legally own and enjoy listening to on cd, ripped into mp3 and synced with my ipod. If anyone ever told me my way of enjoying music was wrong id laugh at them. try before you buy is a popular concept worldwide so why should this not apply to music? i have been doing this ever since i started liking music (im 16 right now), it must have been 6 years, and if you say im wrong then you say that giving money to shitheads that make crappy products is right. not that im accusing anyone of this, least of all the person im replying to.
on an unrelated subject if i want a movie i download it and if i like it i buy it but i tend not to do anything with the purchased copy because the digital copy, in the case of something like an aXXo rip, is generally much more convinient then the dvd which gets ruined quickly if i dont hide it somewhere. stupid optical media.
anyone have a similar moral standing on this to me?
Glomph says: "The point is, most of the money made if I buy music doesn't go to the artist it goes to a bureaucratic system that sues people."
Therefore, it's OK to steal?
And: Do you, sir, swear that you will never, ever illegally download a copy of artist-produced-and-sold music? Also, that you have never done so?
Yikes..... the sheer naivete of your post is mind-boggling.
Tell you what, if you want to support the record labels so bad, ill give you a list of every CD on my computer downloaded illegally and you can go buy a retail copy of it.
Those of you on your moral high horses should open up your minds a little. The simple truth is that (legal) music is ridiculously expensive. As a worst case scenario, the 160GB iPod can hold 40,000 songs (and is advertized as such). At 99 cents each on iTunes, that's $39,600. Anyone here have enough cash to fill that iPod? How bout half? How about 1 percent for $400? It's just ridiculous. Please don't nitpick about file sizes and song costs. That was the worst case, and the best case isn't much better.
The simple truth is that almost everyone loves music, but not everyone can afford it. I'm not defending stealing, as the same argument can be made for robbery. But illegal downloading is relatively harmless, and opens music up to people that wouldn't listen to otherwise.
As a student, I bought less than 10 CD's, partly because of expense, partly because of the ease of downloading. Now that I'm earning an income, I'd have no problem dropping $10-$15 on a CD I know I'll enjoy. Now, if I wasn't able to download music in the past, I would have stuck to the crappy radio, and never would have found half (hell, more like 90%) of the music I like now. I love it when artists care about more people enjoying their music instead of more people buying it.
lastly, can someone please tell me why you people are buying crappy 128kbps mp3's for almost the same price as a full-quality CD? At least go over to Amazon, with no DRM and 256 kbps. Big companies make billions from clueless consumers.
I wrote something very similar to your first article based on the washington post. What proof of digging have you found, saying the RIAA didn't sue over copying of CDS?
I wrote back as well after reading part of the brief and an article written by someone who read the entire brief. This story still isn't accurate. RIAA is suing the Howells, because, even though they claim they never shared their MP3 files, they made their MP3 files available on a file sharing network. That's the part that's illegal, even though these files were digitized from their own CDs.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2851
It's absolutely unforgivable that the Washington Post has shown so little journalistic integrity to write such an article without even reading the complaint. It doesn't help that everyone else is blindly repeating this erroneous story creating even more hatred for the RIAA on false premises.
Its simple, sell your 40GB HD iPod, get a 512 mb shuffle.. that i'll make you get (buy) the music that u really want to listen to..
Piracy is encouraged by larger mp3 players hard drives, when u have an 80 GB hard drive, you wanna fill it with songs, and of course u can't do that legally because it'll cost you your house, your car and probably some part of your body.. so here are some suggestions for the RIAA:
The RIAA should enforce mp3 players internal hard drives to not exceed 512 mb with no exception... wait a minute, that'll piss off big corporations though like apple, sandisk.. u name it.. and when this corps get pissed off, they know how to slap the RIAA really good... So here is an idea, instead of making this fight between the consumers and the RIAA, it should be between corporations. That way the consumer wins.
Limit Players to no more than 512MB? Dude are you serious, what planet are you living on. 512Mb is only enough space for 120 4MB songs at 128Kbps...that is not enough for your average consumer. This random throw around of lawsuits is getting out of hand, why sue the average joe? Why not take on the P2P corps?*I'm not serious with the P2P thing*
ahh while its not quite the same i thought this was pretty funny non the less.
http://www.foxtrot.com/
A long time ago, when I cared what the RIAA thought, I spoke to someone who worked for the RIAA and asked him specifically the legality of "ripping" my own CD's to a harddrive and he said there was nothing wrong with it. Either he was not properly brainwashed or that was the case before they found other ways to piss people off in trying to make money and making us all criminals in the process.
So changing the medium in which you listen to your music is illegal? So if I keep the format the same as the CD, it's not? Hmm..
If they want to be this picky, why don't they ban all the new CD/DVD players too? If you didn't know, a lot of these players use a read buffer to prevent skipping and to have the ability to pause(etc...) and even see a playlist! They are actually copying the track(or portion thereof) for these purposes to have a smoother interface and higher quality playback Wait...I just gave them another idea...
Still wrong...My god, engadet..aren't you supposed to be somewhat tech savvy? If so, how is it possible that on December 30, 2007, you are still reporting that people have EVER been sued for downloading music?
god, so true. While downloading music is illegal, all lawsuits have been those who SHARED files to others. And people who share things on kazaa tend to be those who know least about computers. It's truly the RIAA preying on the clueless while tech-savvy pirates (pirates - savvy?) share millions of terabytes of stuff by other means.
Agreed. The difference between downloading music and SHARING music shouldn't be too subtle for engadget to grasp.
So help me understand this..according to previous quotes, Sony sees transcoding legally owned music from one format to another stealing? In this case transcoding cda to mp3 of a legally acquired music cd? How does this then affect all those millions of iPods and Sony's own mp3 players which come with software to allow such file format conversion? Sony's lawyer was quoted as saying copying to another format is "stealing"...ok, so if I don't like using online downloading sites and would like to load up my player with songs from my legally acquired cd collection as the nice sales person told me I can do I'm now a target for the RIAA?
Sony BMG is completely out of step with the rest of the company. The PS3 itself rips CDs to the HD! Would they sue the Gaming Division for encouraging piracy? Yeah, right.
Most Artist don't make any money from the Cd's you buy, or it's so little as to not matter. So buying music is only giving money to the RIAA. Where the Artist makes money is in Concerts. Support your Favorite artist by going to their Concerts!!! If they don't belong to the RIAA anymore and sell their music online themselves, buy the Music there! Support your Favorite groups, don't support the RIAA!
There really needs to be a place like Itunes, but Independent. For those that aren't supported by the RIAA. Where everyone can go and buy the music directly from the bands all in one location. DRM free, in nice high bit rates at a reasonable price where the band See's at least 50% of that money going to them and the rest to cover the cost for the web sight. If you make it cheap and easy to get great music and the majority of the money is going to the Artists if would be a hit. Why get .05 cents on a $16 CD, where you can get .50 cents a $1 song. Hell you can charge .79 cents a song if you like or even cheaper. Hell charge $5 for a whole CD of tunes and that's still $2.50 at least going to the Artist, far better then the .05 cents. Online Distribution is now and the future. CD's are dieing. Let the RIAA die. Get rid of all these middle men.
This is SONY! Nothing new here which is why I don't see how anyone could support that DRM infested Blu-Ray format. It's just not worth it.
If any organization should be burnt and rot in hell its the RIAA. They have created more trouble than benefits for anyone anywhere...sheesh...
/rant
Could someone please explain to me how the RIAA found out about this guy's personal collection in the first place. If he is not p2ping it, then how did they found out about it?
he WAS p2p-ing it. That's how they caught him and that's what they're suing for. The issue with most of the posts here is how vague the law is on transferring CD's to a computer or mp3 player. If improperly handled in this trial, it could be used as a precedent for future cases.
I'm thinking that we should actually call or email and ask every artist (or record label) whose CDs we own if it is ok for us to rip their songs and see how long they let that last.
To those who equate d/l music = thievery, that is rubbish. I myself had not purchased a CD in over 10yrs prior to Napster. I started d/l music, from groups I never heard of and reminiscing over groups from days gone by. Instantly I purchased several CD’s not all the CD’s from my d/l’s. But as a consumer I went from buying none to buying about 20. Since the RIAA started this whole suing thing I just turned music off again. Now back to none for new purchase, good going RIAA.
It’s called technology, RIAA should not stomp it out, nor should they be allowed to circumvent the judicial system, with their no court order pulling of information. It’s a joke how people could even consider this PIRACY. I remember walking around flea markets where I grew up and real pirates sold knock-off cassette tapes for $ 2.00. Now that’s PIRACY WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PROFIT OFF OF OTHER PEOPLE”S WORK. Again this is just technology, people sharing, no one stops the artists from making money, no one profits of their work. RIAA needs to catch up artists need to catch up stop being ignorant.
Analogy fools, this is for you. D/L’ing has already been around for years, I do not think the artists are suffering that much. Haven’t seen any artists or producers standing on my FREEWAY OFF_RAMPS.
Analogy, well here’s mine, so let’s say you acquired a Picasso off of e-bay (real good deal) you take a photo of it post it on your website, (does this make you a thief?) . Come on all you MORALITY THUMPERS, how many digital photos do you have of copyrighted material ? Maybe you snapped the picture with Santa but didn’t buy the Polaroid they offered. Vacation photos are you sure to pixel out all the COPYRIGHTED visual stuff?
I hope so, or you’re a THIEF!!!!!!!!!
while I'll agree with a lot of what you said (I have a post on the 1st page making a lot of the same points), nowhere did you actually disprove that music = thievery. In the technical sense, it is stealing, whether justified or not. Now, I have no problem with people downloading music, but call a spade a spade. Know it's a crime, and be at peace with it. It's like speeding.
Also, there are plenty of failed artists out there. Just because they're not out there with signs that say "I'm homeless because too many people illegally downloaded my songs" doesn't mean they don't exist. Then again, their failure surely had nothing to do with illegal downloading.
So basically, I agree with your arguments, just not the way you went about it.
I must agree, with the fact I did not prove d/l’ing is not a crime. But to this I would have to add practically the entire populace of mother earth commit crimes daily. Petty as they are most do, example, have you ever let cooking oil run down the drain, or dispose of it in you your local trash collection ? In my county this is illegal, that’s right fry bacon go to jail (or be sued by the record companies) unless you take it to the proper hazardous chemical drop (it is free).
D/l’ing is trivial, and RIAA manipulating the judicial system and some people’s brains into calling this thievery and piracy, is the real crime. Plus our government with the Nazi style digital rights laws , remind me of a monarchical style of government the old King and Queen would be proud of.
Digital rights are still new, and I’m sure a few more eggs will get broken, but I still believe what is right and true will prevail.
There is so much misinformation in these comments it's sad. Y'all are a bit ignorant, aren't you?
The bottom line is that this music, like it or not, is copyrighted. Someone owns it, and more than likely that someone is the record label. Your favorite bands and artists are the ones signing their music away to the record labels in exchange for money and services. Blame them, not the labels. For someone like Trent Reznor to encourage illegal downloading while sucking on the teet of the label he signed to is hypocracy at its finest.
There are more people in the equation that are compensated by CD sales than just the artists and the labels - you're forgetting the engineers, producers, techs, and studio help that all contribute into making your favorite bands' albums sound as good as they do. Shouldn't they get paid as well?
There has been one or two good legal dissections of this topic at the beginning of the comments - the rest has been rubbish.
Saw an advert last night on UK TV, a large supermarket chain are selling 'The ultimate workout mix' and they show a picture of an iPod against the CD's with, upload to your portable music player.
The advert goes on to show people using mp3 players in various situations.
Is this an mp3 disk?
I doubt it, seeing as it's a double disk set and only has about 80 tracks.
Looks like Tesco's in for a RIASS kickin
If the IRAA lose this one, do we get to download free music?
..
:D
As someone who was, until very recently, in an independent band, I can say: Yes, support the artists you like. Buy their CDs. Especially if they are independents! We handled all aspects of our CD from recording to getting it mastered to releasing it etc. We were selling our latest EP for $5 and making about $1.75 a pop on ‘em, give or take a few pennies. We didn’t have a label, so our distribution wasn’t what it could have been, but this was a hobby on the level I was doing it. We didn’t play shows often, so arguing that people should go to our shows to support us was sort of a moot point. If you like a band, buy their music or do without it. Just because you have a 160 GB Ipod does not give you the license to fill it up for free. Stealing it is wrong no matter how you look at it. You can try before you buy, that’s what MySpace and other sites are for.
As for the person who asked why bands can’t sell their wares on a website, it’s simple. If you are signed to a label, they make the decisions as to what gets sold where and for how much. Unless you have a very good contract (which a band like Green Day appears to have, allowing them a hell of a lot of leeway in a lit of matters) you have no say in the matter.
@lilj1969-
How can you say there is no profit being made? You got an album for nothing. You have the music, but no money changed hands, therefore you are $10 (or whatever the CD would have cost) richer than you would be if you had bought the CD. And you are right you don’t see a lot of artists and producers on off ramps. However, the independent record label is getting killed by this. As someone who’s music was on some Russian MP3 sites that claimed to be legal (I don’t know how, we have no distro there) it’s a real slap in the face. Downloading an album for free is not profiting from someone else’s work? Personal profit is still profit! (Christ, now I sound like a Ferenegi!) Just because you’re not selling it, does not mean you aren’t profiting from it.
Your Picasso analogy is flawed. My vacation photos are for me to enjoy, I am not selling them or anything. There’s no intrinsic monetary value to me and the missus standing in front of the KFC in Bermuda on our honeymoon. A digital photo of the Picasso will never be as good as the original, nor are people DLing the image to put them in digital frames in their own “art gallery.”
Can I buy bread with my personal profit ? nope so it's not profit.
D/L ing MP3 is never as good as the original recording, so what's the problem " A digital photo of the Picasso will never be as good as the original" there you have it MP3 are not as good as original. Yes it would be criminal to D/L music then use it commercially like movie soundtrack-private business-whatever.
What if you posted the KFC pix on some questionable website ? Some hate group site showing pix of themselves enjoying the Colonel, maybe then copyright infringement? If only we all would pixel out the logo no problems (I know ridiculous), but How far do we want to take this?
One poster posted, "Canada has a provision that it's not violating copyright if it's copied and used for personal use". Can't vouch for accuracy, but this seems to be the correct approach.
actually, yeah, you can buy bread with the money you *would have spent* to get that album. How can people not see this?
One should ask if the RIAA has really had music stolen from RIAA, actually RIAA is a music association for musicians, Riaa is representing clients.What one has to ask is "is it in the best interest of the musicians(clients)" for the RIAA to take to court the musicians clients..
In accounts that I have read the riaa clients(members) are pretty upset about some of their actions....
The problem here is not deciding if it's illegal or not. Downloading commercial music is illegal, right or wrong. the problem is the law. Canada has a provision that it's not violating copyright if it's copied and used for personal use. Just like prohibition, alcohol was everywhere, it took a change of the law to fix it. Our copyright laws are outdated and have no place in a connected society. Wanna make a change, get the lawmakers involved, until then happy downloading.
We should expect more and more of these suits as DRM is phased out. Those that have argued for the death of DRM (which is occurring, slowly but surely) cannot also argue against these suits since without DRM these suits are the only means of attempting to curtail piracy.
I think most of you are missing the central point to this thread; which is, the fellow did NOT steal this music, he PURCHASED it. So, he's NOT ripping off the artist or the music industry. What difference if he plays it on his laptop via an MP3 file, or via the CD player in the computer? The ONLY difference is this: by playing the MP3 he doesn't risk damaging the disk while he's using it during travel. This whole thing of calling it a crime to copy music you've ALREADY PAID FOR, is tantamount to charging twice for the same merchandise. Can you say, Boston Tea Party? I don't consider much difference between double taxation and double charges for merchandise or service.
to charles "I really don't understand the hatred towards the RIAA. Granted they say some really stupid stuff but they only ever go after people who are illegally stealing music " ..... so the 70 year old couple that they sued that didnt even own a computer were guilty of downloading mp3's ?
have you ever had your cell phone play a ring tone when you were out in public where someone else could hear it ? by the riaa's definition that is an un autherized exibition of copyrighted material and you could be sued ....
ever sang karaoki ? that is an unautherized reproduction of copyrighted material and some one can be sued ... ascap and other companys and persuing all club owners now to get royalty payments for any live entertainment that they ever have...
by the riaa's definition ... if you walk down the street whistling a tune that can be recognised , then that is an unautherised reproduction of copyrighted material and you need to pay licensing fees ...
to answer your question why do we all hate the riaa ... because if they could sue you for thinking of a song they will do it ... they are blood sucking lawers that dont give one shit about music or your rights as an american citizen they just want your money
I think once I buy a CD it's mine to do with it what I like...As long as I don't profit from it or share it for someone elses profit.
If I want to put my latest CD purchsae on my computer and make a copy for the car or Ipod and listen to it myself thats fine and not illegle.
If ripping is illegal then they would have to sue everyone in the universe including this blog.
They ought to go after the real criminals in China and India's black market..they are the real pirates stealing profits from the big boys...it's just easier for them to go after the little guy who can't afford to buy a CD muchless hire a lawyer to defend him against the deep pockets of the RIAA.
Check this out... http://www.havocscope.com/Counterfeit/china.htm
Where to begin? Let's start with the RIAA. The RIAA is a representative of the recording industry, not the artist. Ascap/BMI represent the artist license of copyright. The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is a trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. The corporations are SONY, Universal, EMI and Warner. It is erroneous to suggest artist are represented by them.
In a common recording deal an artist gets approximately 2% to 5% of a record sale, of which 10% goes to lawyers 15% to talent agents, 15% to management etc... Many artist sale their copyright to the record company for a one lump sum payout rather than waiting years for checks from royalties to trickle in. So sales are not the bread and butter of an artist. An artist touring will make more in a week than most sales would ever yield to them.
The record company gets 95% to 98% of a Cd sale. They generally finance the recording, mastering, promotion and distribution of the cd. $250,000 to %500,000 per Cd average. If they sell at least 35000 cds at $15 bucks a pop they break even on cost. Most companies want at least 100,000 in sales to say an artist is marketable. Hell of alot more than the investment. They are the ones sicking their RIAA dog on the public who downloads, transfers, format shifts or shares the music. They assume each download etc as a potential loss of huge profits.
So who is being hurt in the long run?
Artist get pressure to speak out against file sharing etc from the companies. (Metallica vs. Napster) The real story was that the contract between Metallica and the record company was being renegotiated, the company didn't want to appear as corporate money hungry bastards so get the band to go after the filesharing and the contract would be renewed. St. Anger was a dismal flop and the band and the company knew it. Haven't seen an album from Metallica since.
Fans are also hurt by feeling betrayed by the groups who they supported and helped climb to the top only to be called thieves, leaches and criminals by the bands label. Kinda harsh for a corporation of lawyers to sue a 12 year old inner city girl who likes Britney's music.
I have personally bought at least 4 copies of the same Sex Pistols in Album, Cassette, and Cd formats. Now I need to buy it through iTunes too?? Don't be fooled by the language of the brief filed the RIAA wants to make it illegal to format shift the CD to mp3. This case establishes the groundwork for that to happen. If they win they get into the court record that format shifting is illegal. They will continue trying until it is a reality.
For all those crying that the artist is being denied his due look to ASCAP/BMI to represent them not the RIAA.
Blame the idea of intellectual property being a viable concept for all this nonsense. Art is Art. Music is Music. Saying that a song is the property of anyone is just silly. There are 12 notes in an octave and 11 octaves available. String them together and you get music. Add poetry and you get a song. Words and musical notes are not one person's property. Binary code is 0's and 1's, string them together you get programming. 1's and 0's are not one person's property. I just hope that the RIAA is ready to pay Mozart for inspiring all these musicians with his intellectual property. I wonder who represents him??
@EDR229 -
Wouldn't that mean that copying a CD (or vinyl for that matter) to an audiocasette falls under the same umbrella? Isn't that right protected? If it isn't, I'm proud to say I've been a copyrecht violator since before puberty!
Furthering that though, why is filesharing illegal at all?
I used to make mixtapes for my friends. Was that illegal?
This guy bought his CDs, ripped them to his computer (a degradation in quality, not an exact copy, mind you), and placed them in a folder he can share with his friends.
What's the difference between the cd-to-cassette copy of Nevermind a friend made me after my CD was stolen and him burning a CD for me? If there is no difference, then wouldn't him copying a file for me be the same thing?
And if that's the case, what's wrong with sharing music with your friends? Say, I want to share my latest purchase with 30 million of my closest friends. What's wrong with that?
Call me naive, but this is ALWAYS how culture has spread. People share their common culture. I know these corporations think they own this culture, but they really don't, no matter what their contract says. Culture belongs to everybody.
Ok...here is the real issue. If people were not stupid enough to post thousands of files out there to be shared they would probably never have been sued and there would probably not be enough cause for the Giga Corps. to spend the time or money chasing these people.
I guarantee you, unless the record companies start loading spyware on peoples computers for no reason and without probable cause,(and I think it would be illegally obtained evidence any way,) if you don't share, you won't get in trouble.I even feel if you just shared maybe 100 files at a time they wouldn't bother although I still wouldn't put it past the Fu(I
On a side note. "Piracy is theft" is an acceptable saying in water-cooler chat. The moment we are talking about lawsuits, of course, we need to use legal jargon properly or else our arguments are irrelevant to the context.
And in a legal sense, the general form of 'piracy' is actually called Copyright Infringement. That is an entirely different crime from Petty Theft. Saying 'piracy is theft' in a legal context is comparable to saying 'jaywalking is joyriding'.
PIRACY IS NOT THEFT.
That is all.