RIAA completely loses the plot ... | The Coffeehouse

Ray6

The Recording Industry Association of America has decided to go for the end game according to the Washington Post.

In their latest campaign against the folk who ultimately pay their wages, the organisation is ready to take Jeffrey Howell to court over his 'illegal copying' of over 2000 CDs in his music collection.

In what could be the most important case yet, the RIAA is taking the position that copying music and storing it on a computer is illegal, even if it is only for personal use.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Ray6 wrote:
In what could be the most important case yet, the RIAA is taking the position that copying music and storing it on a computer is illegal, even if it is only for personal use.

Y'see, technically it is illegal. But in the US you have the "Fair Use defense" (it's not a right) whereby you justify the copying because it was for personal use with no ill-intent towards the copyright holder, then you get away scott-free.

Those of us in the UK unfortunately don't have that luxury, but thankfully the BPI hasn't been anywhere near as evil as the RIAA, with their activities been limited to taking down dodgy market dealers.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

Yay for more RIAA hate! What are the chances that the Washington Post doesn't know squat about the charges being brought, because they have talked to the person who is angry that they are being sued by the RIAA and don't know why, and the RIAA have declined to comment on an ongoing case and don't want to prejudice the verdict?

The man is not being sued for having the copies on his computer or for copying them from the CD to the computer. He is being sued for illegally distributing the songs online.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

W3bbo wrote:

Those of us in the UK unfortunately don't have that luxury, but thankfully the BPI hasn't been anywhere near as evil as the RIAA, with their activities been limited to taking down dodgy market dealers.

And indeed the BPI stated that whilst strictly speaking its illegal they will not prosecture.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

evildictaitor wrote:
He is being sued for illegally distributing the songs online.

Where does it say that?

Ray6

evildictaitor wrote:
Yay for more RIAA hate! What are the chances that the Washington Post doesn't know squat about the charges being brought, because they have talked to the person who is angry that they are being sued by the RIAA and don't know why, and the RIAA have declined to comment on an ongoing case and don't want to prejudice the verdict?

The man is not being sued for having the copies on his computer or for copying them from the CD to the computer. He is being sued for illegally distributing the songs online.

Mmmm .... a possibility, but according to the article:

Washington Post wrote:

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."

So I'm assuming that they have picked up this information from the filed brief. From reading to the article, I'm not even sure they've even spoken to Howell.

One thing that is a little unclear though; if the files were just being stored locally, then how did they come be 'known' by the RIAA?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Ray6 wrote:
One thing that is a little unclear though; if the files were just being stored locally, then how did they come be 'known' by the RIAA?

More likely he was cought distributing/sharing a few files (maybe 1 or 2) over Limewire or something, then they realised they could get even more money from his "copyright infringement" for ripping his CDs. The article doesn't say if the RIAA explicitly named those CDs, so they're likely shooting into the dark and hoping to hit something (and they probably will).

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

W3bbo wrote:

evildictaitor wrote:He is being sued for illegally distributing the songs online.

Where does it say that?

How do you think the RIAA chooses lawsuits? Names of students out of a hat? He has 2000 tracks on his machine from his own legitmately bought CD collection, but the RIAA can't trace you doing a copy on your own machine. They trace internet traffic.

And in this instance, they'll have traced his. I'll bet any money that he was illegally distributing his 2000 tracks of legally bought (he claims) CDs, and the RIAA and he both know it.

I'm not aware that the case has been filed yet, (the 'post says that he is contesting the letter) and until it is we won't know for sure, but I suspect if that RIAA brings charges for storing the files, it's just the RIAA "throwing the book" at him, in a simmilar way to Al Capone (suspected serial killer, mafia boss) being done for tax fraud and going down for life.

Ray6

evildictaitor wrote:

W3bbo wrote:
evildictaitor wrote:He is being sued for illegally distributing the songs online.

Where does it say that?

How do you think the RIAA chooses lawsuits? Names of students out of a hat? He has 2000 tracks on his machine from his own legitmately bought CD collection, but the RIAA can't trace you doing a copy on your own machine. They trace internet traffic.

And in this instance, they'll have traced his. I'll bet any money that he was illegally distributing his 2000 tracks of legally bought (he claims) CDs, and the RIAA and he both know it.

I'm not aware that the case has been filed yet, and until it is we won't know for sure, but I suspect if that RIAA brings charges for storing the files, it's just the RIAA "throwing the book" at him, in a simmilar way to Al Capone (suspected serial killer, mafia boss) being done for tax fraud and going down for life.

Well, since we are all just making assumptions here, then what really concerns me is that the RIAA are attempting to tack this charge of 'illegally storing files' onto the distribution charge. If they can force that one through on the back of the distribution thing (which we are not sure is even part of the filing yet), then it will make it easier for them to try and push it on its own.

Whatever the details, I see no evidence that the Washington Post is making it all up to make the RIAA look bad ...

AndyC

Could this be the answer? No DRM, sharing encouraged, but ad supported. I'm not convinced myself, but it is interesting to see the music industry starting to look for an alternate model.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

Ray6 wrote:

Well, since we are all just making assumptions here, then what really concerns me is that the RIAA are attempting to tack this charge of 'illegally storing files' onto the distribution charge. If they can force that one through on the back of the distribution thing (which we are not sure is even part of the filing yet), then it will make it easier for them to try and push it on its own.

That's exactly the thing. Nothing has been filed, and the RIAA would decline to comment on a pending investigation/charges. So the only way the post could get hold of this is on the say-so of the person who was originally sent the letter, who almost certainly doesn't fully understand what's going on (if he got himself a lawyer with any sense, he wouldn't be speaking to the Post).

Ray6 wrote:

Whatever the details, I see no evidence that the Washington Post is making it all up to make the RIAA look bad ...

They're not "making it up", but I suspect they're not telling it like it is. The Post used to be a really good paper, but it's bad journalism like this which skims over the facts and jumps to the headline of "RIAA TEH BAD!" that's just bad form.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

evildictaitor wrote:
....hich skims over the facts and jumps to the headline of "RIAA TEH BAD!" that's just bad form.

They are though Wink

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

Just how would the RIAA learn about "Jeff's" ripped CD collection?

Skriker V1.0
Need more money...

Xaero_Vincent wrote:
Just how would the RIAA learn about "Jeff's" ripped CD collection?

Companies that produce software like "Limewire" are clearly to blame for some of this "Copyright infringement" When you install the app it attempts by default to scan your drives and broadcast what it finds for others to consume.

The other problem (and I know its not an excuse) is that the law is never made clear, it does not say on an audio CD that you cant or you will be breaking the law by copying it to your PC / portable media player. In fact you are encouraged by audio ripping software and players to copy this content, it will even find the track information online and apply it for you.

Simple solution, release all music for free and and encourage people to donate to the artists directly.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

Companies that produce software like "Limewire" are clearly to blame for some of this "Copyright infringement" When you install the app it attempts by default to scan your drives and broadcast what it finds for others to consume.

But it doesn't do this by stealth, it tells you, and frankly downloading a program billed as a file sharing program you cannot say "Oh but I didn't know it was going to share files".

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

The other problem (and I know its not an excuse) is that the law is never made clear, it does not say on an audio CD that you cant or you will be breaking the law by copying it to your PC / portable media player.

It doesn't say on my front door that you can't break in. So what? Ignorance of the law is not a defense in the majority of companies.

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

In fact you are encouraged by audio ripping software and players to copy this content, it will even find the track information online and apply it for you.

You what? When it pulls down the track information does a big flashing screen appear and a klaxon sound saying "Rip and share this?" Utter nonsense. Track information retrieval was also used by players which don't rip.

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

Simple solution, release all music for free and and encourage people to donate to the artists directly.

Would you work for just tips? If not, why do you view it as an acceptable means of employment for others?

Skriker V1.0
Need more money...

blowdart wrote:

But it doesn't do this by stealth, it tells you, and frankly downloading a program billed as a file sharing program you cannot say "Oh but I didn't know it was going to share files".

Like I said "Companies that produce software like "Limewire" are clearly to blame for some of this "Copyright infringement"

blowdart wrote:

It doesn't say on my front door that you can't break in. So what? Ignorance of the law is not a defense in the majority of companies.

Again read what I said "(and I know its not an excuse)"

blowdart wrote:

You what? When it pulls down the track information does a big flashing screen appear and a klaxon sound saying "Rip and share this?" Utter nonsense. Track information retrieval was also used by players which don't rip.

My point was that the software encourages you to "RIP" the music to your PC

blowdart wrote:

Would you work for just tips? If not, why do you view it as an acceptable means of employment for others?

well look at all the other ways money is made, Live concerts, Tshirts and so on..

Skriker V1.0
Need more money...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6710000/newsid_6711100?redirect=6711167.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1

phreaks

So basically if the RIAA wins the case to subvert Fair Use, it means you'll have to purchase digital copies of the songs you already own for your iPod/Zune and your Media Servers?

WTF?

What about albums where the digital versions isn't even available?

This is effing retarded, seriously.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

W3bbo wrote:

Ray6 wrote:In what could be the most important case yet, the RIAA is taking the position that copying music and storing it on a computer is illegal, even if it is only for personal use.

Y'see, technically it is illegal. But in the US you have the "Fair Use defense" (it's not a right) whereby you justify the copying because it was for personal use with no ill-intent towards the copyright holder, then you get away scott-free.

See W3bbo, here in 'merica we have something called the Constitution, and it says that everything is legal, unless there's a law that says it's illegal.

There is nothing that says making a copy of your own media for your own use is illegal. So technically, it is legal.

In fact, back in the days of VHS tapes, it has been confirm by the courts that recording TV signals to tape for your own use does NOT break copyright laws. This is "fair use".

Now, along comes the DMCA laws, which says it is illegal to break encryption, so you can't rip your DVDs to the harddrives.

Which is opposite of earlier rulings. Laws are funny like that.

Notice that the MPAA haven't gone after ANYONE for ripping DVDs to harddrives, only for sharing. It's because they know that "fair use" would probably overturn that particular clause in the DMCA.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Minh wrote:

W3bbo wrote:
Ray6 wrote:In what could be the most important case yet, the RIAA is taking the position that copying music and storing it on a computer is illegal, even if it is only for personal use.

Y'see, technically it is illegal. But in the US you have the "Fair Use defense" (it's not a right) whereby you justify the copying because it was for personal use with no ill-intent towards the copyright holder, then you get away scott-free.

See W3bbo, here in 'merica we have something called the Constitution, and it says that everything is legal, unless there's a law that says it's illegal.

There is nothing that says making a copy of your own media for your own use is illegal. So technically, it is legal.

That's not the constitution's doing, rather how Common Law operates (IANAL). It's the same situation in the UK.

And actually, there is a law that says making a copy of your own media for your own is illegal: copyright law.

...as I said, you just use Fair Use to justify your breakage of the law.

But it's civil, not criminal. So things are slightly different.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

phreaks wrote:
So basically if the RIAA wins the case to subvert Fair Use...

~~It isn't fair use any more... since the guy made the copies, then give the originals away! Doh! Can't do that.~~

Oops, that was another case... Seems that the RIAA is on thin ice here... If the guy isn't sharing his collection, technically, he's not even breaking DMCA. CDs (fortunately) isn't encrypted.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

W3bbo wrote:

That's not the constitution's doing

Yes, it is. The Constitution states that the government only has the power enumerated in the constitution. If it's not in there, the government doesn't have it. Everything is legal, unless otherwise noted.

W3bbo wrote:
(IANAL)

Yah, it shows Smiley

W3bbo wrote:

And actually, there is a law that says making a copy of your own media for your own is illegal: copyright law.

Laws aren't set in stone once they're signed. All court rulings change the laws. Rulings by the courts, unless overriden by a higher court, must be adhered to.

So fair use isn't "justification", it is law. Attached to copyright laws, as an exception.

W3bbo wrote:

But it's civil, not criminal. So things are slightly different.

Don't you guys, over there, still jail people for failing to pay off debts? Or at least indenture servitude?

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Minh wrote:
Don't you guys, over there, still jail people for failing to pay off debts? Or at least indenture servitude?

For up to 6 weeks, only if you have the means to pay off the debts but are dodging them.

Not as though the US is any worse: fail to keep up with child support and you get landed in prison too.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

blowdart wrote:
Would you work for just tips? If not, why do you view it as an acceptable means of employment for others?

well look at all the other ways money is made, Live concerts, Tshirts and so on..

Not everybody who makes music also holds concerts or sells t-shirts. Besides, the "download for free, then pay what you think it's worth" scheme was recently tried by Radiohead, and reportedly a large majority of people either chose not to pay for their downloads, or not even download from the official site. In fact, as far as I know, Radiohead hasn't disclosed any numbers as of yet. If the scheme was a huge succes, I'm sure they would've made that public as soon as possible, but no.

The real simple solution, in my opinion, is ensuring that when you're buying music, you're buying the rights to that music, regardless of the medium. So if you buy the CD, you can also download the MP3, or rip it yourself. You're licensed to own those songs, so the way you get them is irrelevant.

Then have the RIAA crack down hard on illegal file sharing (with reasonable penalties). There's really no reason not to.

That way, legal buyers have all the perks, and illegal distribution can be dealt with. Seems good to me.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Bas wrote:

Skriker V1.0 wrote:

blowdart wrote:
Would you work for just tips? If not, why do you view it as an acceptable means of employment for others?

well look at all the other ways money is made, Live concerts, Tshirts and so on..

Not everybody who makes music also holds concerts or sells t-shirts.

In fact, I read somewhere that for many smaller bands concerts actually lose money; the only reason they still hold them is because they're seen as promotion for the CDs (and quite likely because they like it, but I'm speaking strictly from a financial perspective).

This obviously isn't true for big bands like the Rolling Stones that can fill Wembley for five consecutive nights, but apparently for most of the small bands concerts do not make money directly.