The RIAA, the recording industry mouthpiece responsible for suing everyone from pre-teens to grannies for downloading music online, has now suggested that it is against the law even for consumers to copy a CD onto their own computer, for their own personal use, or to loan a CD to someone else for them to listen to it.
When I read that, I threw up into my mouth a little bit. Do you have any idea how many albums I loaned out and/or borrowed when I was a teenager? Yeah, I know, I’m dating myself by referencing albums. Yet, I’m sure teens today do the same thing with CDs, and you know what? I don’t see a damn thing wrong with doing that. They bought it, it’s theirs, and they can do with it as they please.
According to The Washington Post:
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.”
…
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.
…
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.
They’ve GOT to be kidding.
If I buy a book and loan it to someone else to read, am I violating the author’s copyright? Of course not, especially since libraries are made to do exactly that. Yet it takes a LOT longer to write a book, than it does to record a CD, and arguably requires far more intelligence and (in many cases) more talent. Why is it that writers aren’t screaming about this, while musicians are? I’d guess it’s because writers are smarter than musicians, but we already knew that.
Libraries now loan out CDs, they’ve been doing that for quite a while. Is the RIAA going to sue libraries for loaning out CDs, or will they pick and choose who they are going to sue? Outrageous.
Now, I’m not into downloading music, never have been. However, I’m getting so annoyed with these RIAA holier-than-thou assholes that I’m tempted to start downloading the hell out of music I already own, just to prove a point.
If I buy a CD, the music is mine forever. I can copy the music files onto my computer in case the CD ever gets scratched, I can post a song on my website, I can loan the CD to a friend so they can listen to it. That’s all called “Fair Use”. If the CD really sucks, I can use the CD itself as a frisbee to play with my dogs (I don’t suggest that, because dogs can get hurt on it) or I can use it as a coaster. What I do with it is nobody’s business but mine, because I own it. I feel confident that, when and if the RIAA’s newest ludicrous claims are ever litigated, the courts will agree with me.
What the RIAA folks don’t seem to understand (or maybe they’re starting to figure it out, time will tell) is that music consumers are rebelling, big time. CD sales were down 20% from last year. People are paying for downloads instead, so they get only the songs they want (as opposed to buying a CD, where you are paying even for songs you don’t want). The industry is changing, and if the RIAA and the artists don’t change with it, they’re in for a world of hurt.
Truthfully, I won’t feel sorry for them if they end up going broke. I bust my ass to write for a living, when I’m writing I’m working 18 hours a day, sometimes for months on end. I’ve got a few stories I’ve been chasing for years, at great cost to me in both time and money. Yet you don’t see me bellyaching because the local library loaned my work to multiple people without paying me for it each time they loan it out.
By the way, I blame this entire mess on Metallica. They were upset because people were downloading their music on Napster, and raised hell and started this entire mess. The problem is, Metallica really isn’t all that talented, and their music isn’t all that unique. It’s not as if they created the musical equivalent of War and Peace, after all.
The RIAA needs to understand that it is going too far, and their ownership myopia is going to start backfiring on them with juries. Just hide and watch, you’ll see that I’m right. Jury nullification is alive and well in this country, and jurors are not going to find anybody liable for thousands of dollars in damages merely for copying a CD onto their own computer for personal use, or for loaning a CD to their friend.
Originally posted by ElfNinosMom on Adventures in Frickintardistan
