When the RIAA loses its mind

I appreciate the fact that the music business is in the midst of considerable turmoil. CD sales are abysmal, record companies are losing a lot of money, and music pirating has become fairly routine, prompting thousands of lawsuits from the RIAA against consumers. It’s an industry facing major, system challenges.

But if the music business wants to get back on track, this definitely isn’t the way to do it.

[I]n 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.”

According to the WaPo report, the music industry’s own website 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.”

It appears, however, that it’s raising plenty of concerns from the RIAA, which is taking a ridiculously hard-line. Indeed, it’s as if the industry is anxious to destroy any remaining goodwill it may have left.

And lest anyone think the controversy was an isolated incident, it’s not.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy,’ ” she said. […]

The 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.

Matt Yglesias noted that, given this RIAA position, Hillary Clinton might be vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit, but I’d set my sights a little higher:

In the video linked below, we see that President Bush’s iPod contains songs by the Beatles; since no Beatles songs have been licensed for the iTunes Music Store yet, these must have come from ripped CDs. Remember last February, when the RIAA told a federal agency that ripping CDs is illegal? I wonder if they’ll bring charges.

Hmm, the RIAA vs. Bush. Who to root for, who to root against….

I am yet to see in any of the coverage of this incident how exactly the RIAA knew this person had all those songs on his computer.

  • With any luck, the lying thieves, back-alley perverts and professional scum who are the “recording industry” will finally get the just desserts they’ve been deserving for at least the past 90 years that there has been a recording industry and be found face down in a pool of blood in a back alley. I am sure there isn’t a musician on the planet who doesn’t share this attitude. Finally the thieves are being done in by their own “morals.”

  • even buying a song on iTunes then putting it on your ipod involves making a copy of the file doesn’t it?

  • Maybe we should all turn ourselves in, and see how bad they want to pursue this bullshit. Want to file charges on ~100 million Americans?

    What a bunch of retards.

  • I have personally bought CD’s of music I pirated years ago in order to be “in compliance.”
    You’re telling me I need to buy a media specific license?

    If I upgrade to a RAM hard drive, that’s a different media. Will that upgrade cost me $1000 because I have to re-download every song I bought from iTunes onto the magnetic disk hard drive?

    If not, why is that different from owning the song on a plastic optical disk but having to re-purchase it to play it off a magnetic disk of a hard drive. Is there a limit to how many times I need to purchase the same song? Why don’t I need to purchase another copy for my iPod if it’s on my computer? Same logic involved, I would think.

    Can they sell a license for a song that I CAN listen to it anywhere by any mechanism I please? \

    Anyone cheesed about this, please support Radiohead who released an album, that was web only and let you pay whatever you thought it was worth. I didn’t care for it, but these guys deserve to get wealthy so it will encourage every musician to drop these middleman leeches.

  • Callimaco, the defendant is actually being sued by the RIAA for having those songs in a shared folder on his computer. He’s not in legal trouble for ripping the songs onto his computer from CDs (although the RIAA seems to be saying they COULD make a legal case of that if they wanted to) but rather for providing access (via sharing) to those songs.

  • But with regard to ripping from your own CD, evidently the RIAA has never heard of a little thing called “fair use” or more likely, feels that it does not apply to their members.

    Thank you Congress for all of your infinite wisdom in screwing us all with the DMCA.

  • since the invention of the cassette deck pirating has been commonplace — no news there. and i’d venture to guess it’s primarily the same demographic (here) as it’s always been — students with time on their hands and too broke to pay for music anyway.

    the music industry is still behind the tech curve and paranoid, and i’m completely empathetic to musicians having earned my bread as one for many years.

    the RIAA should kiss Job’s feet for iTunes/iPod buck-a-tune success. without it, the music industry would be in a world more hurt than it already is (and the label execs might want to try leading the curve instead of following it when it comes to signing talent based on the abysmal trends of the past decade or so). also, many artists are taking control and utilizing the technology to do their own recording and online distribution.

    the RIAA better get creative itself or it’s gonna find itself a thing of the past.

  • Jesus Christ, these people really are living cariacatures of the money grubbing music exec. I hope PC makers enter an amicus brief on the plaintiff’s behalf because a lot of people use their computers as sound systems.

    Next they’ll try to bar people from loaning recordings to friends or playing music at parties until finally they stop selling music to keep people from listening to it at all.

  • Wasn’t it just last week the recording industry was warning consumers to be aware of pirated compilations? You can tell the fakes, they said, because those are the ones with all the songs you’d want to buy, as opposed to the official product, which sucks.

  • So much for the music industry showing any appreciation for its few remaining paying customers. They’ve just removed the last reason for anyone to actually buy a music CD.

  • Callimaco said:
    I am yet to see in any of the coverage of this incident how exactly the RIAA knew this person had all those songs on his computer.

    There are still file-sharing websites out there. They’ve managed to stay below the radar because, unlike with the old Napster, users don’t upload their music files to a central repository. Instead, they make the music files on their computers available for others to download – kind of like storing the files for a webpage on their own computers.

    I’m told by techie friends that the only real danger from these sites is that the record companies monitor them and trace the location of the music files.

    And yes, I’ve used one of these file-sharing sites. A lot of music is not yet available from Itunes. As CB mentioned, none of the Beatles is available. In addition, classic rock staples like Aerosmith’s “Sweet Emotion” and “Walk This Way” are only available in sloppy, live versions. And forget about finding obscure stuff like King Crimson.

    I’ve downloaded — some would say ‘stolen’ — a lot of digital music. But most of it is music that I’ve already paid for at least once in cassette or 8-track format. Hell, I’ve bought Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run” four times – on 8-track, on cassette, on CD and in the remastered 30th anniversary CD version. So if I ‘pirate’ “The Ghost of Tom Joad”, the record company (and Bruce) are still ‘way ahead.

    If RIAA persists in trying to stop people from uploading their own CDs onto their Ipods, maybe Apple will enter the legal fray. That would be fun to watch.

  • I’ve read the legal brief in question, I think WaPo screwed the story on this.

    Basically, the indiustry argued (in the brief) that you can’t copy songs from your CD to your computer if you place those songs in a “shared folder” which allows other anonymous people to download them through a peer-to-peer file-sharing system (like Kazaa).

    I’m no fan of the RIAA, but I don’t think they are saying what WaPo claims.

  • You can’t help but wonder where this will end. You can’t lend a legally purchased CD to a friend?!?!? What about playing it for a friend and leaving before the CD ends? Don’t you cross a line into lending in such a circumstance?

    Their distribution model is outdated and they saw it coming years ago. But rather than adapt, they’d rather lobby for asinine regulation that pisses off their customer base while keeping their business lashed to the stone age.

    The irony is, the more they impose restrictions, or digital rights requirements (ever had to reinstall Vista?) they more sympathetic I am to the pirates.

    When companies start with the assumption that their customers are criminals, the customers might as well act like it.

  • ROFL, Grumpy!

    If RIAA persists in trying to stop people from uploading their own CDs onto their Ipods, maybe Apple will enter the legal fray. That would be fun to watch

    Man I hope you’re joking because that won’t work for anyone. iTunes doesn’t have a lot of stuff (I should say a lot of stuff I want) but there’s a definete advantage for them if every time I start to play a CD in my PC it runs through iTunes and a little box pops up that offers to automatically rip it for me.

    Apple v. RIAA? Yeah, I’d buy tickets to that match.

  • To date, including the instant case, RIAA has gone after people who “make available” copyrighted material. Putting copyrighted material in a shared folder on your personal server is “making available”. It does not matter whether you stole the material by downloading it or purchased it. In either case the violation is making it available.

    RIAA finds violators who “make available” the same way everyone else does. The use peer to peer file sharing programs (limewire, etc) to locate specific files. Then they check the entire contents of the shared directory which contains those files. When they find a directory which contains enough of their material then they spend the money to track down the owner and send a demand letter.

    No one is trying to tell this guy he can’t rip copies off his legally owned CDs to play on his computer or MP3 player. That probably, or at least possibly, would be legal. So far RIAA has been very careful to only pick fights that they can win on the merits. Since they won against Napster, they have narrowly focused on people who “make available” on “peer to peer networks” over the public internet.

    It is possible that he did not realize that his music folder was shared. That fact would not relieve him of civil liability although it might protect him from criminal charges. That’s part of the reason there have been so few (none I’ve heard of for peer to peer sharing) criminal prosecutions. Folks who configure their per to peer software so that they only download and do not share are generally safe from RIAA. However, if everyone did that there would be no music to steal.

    RIAA is accusing this individual of “making available” material which RIAA owns. RIAA is claiming that he is using his computer as a server to share (“allow illegal downloading of”) copyrighted material. If that is the case then he has violated the copyright and has a corresponding civil liability. The copyright laws were written by folks who are owned by the corporate copyright holders and the “statutory damages” are draconian. All they have to do to win a life ruining punitive judgment (hundreds of thousands or millions with no bankruptcy) is to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their material was shared from his computer. “Preponderance of the evidence” is a pretty easy to meet standard.

  • After the Sony fiasco for installing a rootkit, the overpriced CDs and the RIAA for not adhering to any form of fair use. I haven’t purchased a CD in years. No — I am not pirating either. I just listen to the radio and play the ones I have, but I won’t be giving the RIAA any more money. Let them sink.

  • I would love to be on the legal team defending one of these cases. As CH notes, the copyright law is rigged to favor Big Media, so you have to try and push these cases to a policy level, not just a strict reading of the law. The point of intellectual property law is to protect (and therefore encourage) creative works and innovation. But the RIAA’s fight is not using copyright to protect innovation, it is using it to protect distribution. The RIAA comes in with horribly unclean hands in trying to protect its right to distribute: it settled a multi-million dollar multi-state Attorney General antitrust action based on RIAA’s unlawful restraint of trade in distribution of music.

    Moreover, intellectual property should not be allowed to frustrate the consumer demands in the marketplace (indeed, the point of protecting innovation is in theory to help encourage creators to satisfy market demand for innovation). The major labels knew or should have known for years that consumers wanted digitial delivery; they totally ignored or intentionally failed to satisfy the market. So innovators outside of their control created digital delivery systems — that is how a market should work. Had iTunes (or a similar concept) been the first digital delivery system out of the box, most people would never have hooked into free distribution. To this day for-pay digital distribution would be huge if (a) the entire possible universe of tunes were available and (b) DRM weren’t so confusing, inconsistent, incompatible and unreasonable.

    Finally, it should be pointed out over and over that back in the 1980s, when we all had to replace our vinyl with CDs, the RIAA/major label talking heads said (and I am positive a defense team could find hundreds of these quotes) that while CDs cost $20 a piece, in a few years they would be dirt cheap because they cost little to manufacture. Instead, the price never went down; instead the industry packed more on the CD to create the illusion of value — but most of it was junk that would never have made a traditional 46 minute vinyl album because it lacked merit. Again, the industry had every opportunity to solve this problem (heck, I wrote a letter as a 15 yr old to Columbia Record Club asking if there was a way for them to sell custom mix CDs); its protection should be that it gets first shot — it should not be allowed to forever deny what the market wants – and wants for good reason – that is, to not have to pay $18 after all of these years for a 65 minute CD with 4 decent songs (essentially a “tying arrangement” – you have to pay for the bad stuff to get the stuff you really want).

  • I used to support myself playing with three other people in San Francisco bars back in the Haight-Ashbury folk-rock days. We were happy when people recorded us and played our songs for others. My roommate back then (not in the group) later became Janis Joplin’s lead guitar. The first two LPs Big Brother & the Holding Company cut were ripped off by the recording company, as many artists continue to be.

    American corporations have found a way to turn even music into crass property rights with corporate incomes in millions which never get into the wallets of the composer or performers. The lion’s share is raked in by some fat bastard who wouldn’t know a 7th chord from a ritard– or worse, the shareholders of some corporation which used to manufacture socks or toilet paper). Same with sport. Same with political campaigns. All that matters is money.

    My first semester in college (Chem major, USF, 1957) I thought I should take a business course for some reason. Practicality? The first sentence out of the teacher’s mouth (waving his arm toward downtown San Francisco) was “There’s a buck to made out there, and you can make it.” I picked up my books, walked out, dropped the course and never looked back.

  • Sadly, no. Techblog Engadget and posters in their Comments Section have already debunked this particular misleading article by digging a little deeper into the case and finding Jeffrey Howell is in fact being sued for illegal downloading, NOT for ripping his legal CDs into mp3s. The RIAA maintains that ripping legal CDs into mp3s constitutes making “unauthorized copies” and the only reason they went after the guy is because he was using Kazaa to illegally share music. He had saved his “unauthorized copies” to the same folder as his illegal downloads and that’s how the whole “ripping” thing got involved in this.

    http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

  • from: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/victory-is-near/emi-to-slash-riaa-funding-putting-riaa-on-deathwatch-327894.php

    Say goodbye to the RIAA, for its days are numbered. EMI, one of the “big four” record labels that feeds $132.3 million every year to trade groups such as the RIAA and IFPI, has decided that its money could be better spent elsewhere. It’s reportedly considering cutting its funding towards the trade groups significantly, which would make it a lot harder for the RIAA to sue people, invade people’s privacy and generally be huge dicks.

    EMI is a business just like any other company, and its new owners must have realized that spending $132 million a year to alienate their customers was providing them with a really poor return on investment. I mean, it’s just not good business sense. Will any of the other major labels follow suit? Time will tell, but if they do you can pretty much wave goodbye to the era of the RIAA having influence. A bittersweet victory it would be, as I’d need to find something else to bitch and moan about every day, but it’d be worth it in the end. [Ars Technica

  • The host at a party will have to keep track of the songs played and collect a dime from each guest for each song they listen to. If it’s a loud party, the neighbors will have to pay up too.

    RIAA can cruise neighborhoods at night and note the party houses and return the next day to collect.

  • No one is trying to tell this guy he can’t rip copies off his legally owned CDs to play on his computer or MP3 player.

    No, that is precisely what they ARE telling him. (See the bit about “unauthorized copies.”) They’re just saying they’ll be big about it and not sue you for doing it even though they calim they have the right to.

    The RIAA maintains that ripping legal CDs into mp3s constitutes making “unauthorized copies” and the only reason they went after the guy is because he was using Kazaa to illegally share music.

    See above. They are claiming that the making of these “unauthorized copies” is illegal, even if they’re going to be oh so generous and not prosecute you for doing it. Gee thanks, guys. What’s to prevent you from changing your mind tomorrow and prosecuting this alleged “violation?” Oh, nothing.

  • vivalapsych really nailed it: “EMI is a business just like any other company, and its new owners must have realized that spending $132 million a year to alienate their customers was providing them with a really poor return on investment.”

    If these clowns would have been even remotely descent with CD’s, & MP3’s their customers would not have spent the time and energy inventing piracy technology.

    The big secret and the real reason digital music is going to dissolve Big Music is the piracy sites located in countries that could less about US copyrights. They are setting up shop just like iTunes, yet selling music for a tenth of the cost.

    Talk about the free market working. Big Music has spent at least a generation screwing over their customers and now there is a technology in which those same people can finally even the score, they are going to actually wonder why people will risk the near impossibility of getting caught.

  • Comments are closed.