Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[Tony Trout]

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.


Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

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

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.



Opinions anyone???

[clemsontigers23]

I would tell you my opinion but it would probably be inappropriate to post on here. ;)

[DareDevil]

I would tell you my opinion but it would probably be inappropriate to post on here. ;)
My thoughts on this issue are not exactly "youth free" either.

[rossid]

What about burning the music and then giving away the cd? I've been telling my son it is not okay to get free music. I think if you own the music and give the original away, after making a copy, that is okay.

[DareDevil]

The music industry would argue that such a copy is illegal simply because you did not pay for it.


*sigh*
This development is destroying my passion for music more and more. Seriously, I'm sure that I am not the only one who is not downloading anything illegally while also buying LESS CDs at the same time.

[rossid]

But I did buy the cd. Then gave the cd away.

I also am not downloading anything for free and buy much less cds but due to financial limits.

[DareDevil]

But I did buy the cd. Then gave the cd away.

I also am not downloading anything for free and buy much less cds but due to financial limits.
You and I both know that the music industry doesn't follow your argumentation there. That's sad of course, but the music industry has pretty much declared war upon its customers.


I really hope that this will backfire on them.

[rossid]

You and I both know that the music industry doesn't follow your argumentation there. That's sad of course, but the music industry has pretty much declared war upon its customers.


I really hope that this will backfire on them.

Well I now have to confess that I did thing that maybe it was considered wrong to copy and give away the original.

[sandyandporter]

What about burning the music and then giving away the cd? I've been telling my son it is not okay to get free music. I think if you own the music and give the original away, after making a copy, that is okay.

I don't think that is ok. I will let someone borrow a cd on the grounds that they don't burn it. If they like it.... go out and buy it! I want Southern Tracks, really, really bad but I won't ask my sister who won it to burn it for me. It's not right.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel about the industry... that's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that it's stealing and that's a sin. **makes note to stop eating grapes while shopping***

[rossid]

I don't think that is ok. I will let someone borrow a cd on the grounds that they don't burn it. If they like it.... go out and buy it! I want Southern Tracks, really, really bad but I won't ask my sister who won it to burn it for me. It's not right.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel about the industry... that's a moot point. The fact of the matter is that it's stealing and that's a sin. **makes note to stop eating grapes while shopping***I've told several people not to burn me cds.

[Jake]

I've been turned onto I-Tunes recently. You pay for the music, but you go through and pick out which songs you want.

[Sam!]

But I did buy the cd. Then gave the cd away.

I also am not downloading anything for free and buy much less cds but due to financial limits.
Let's assume that it's OK to make a digital copy of music you own, for your own personal enjoyment. You've purchased a CD, and the band and recording label and all those people get money for that. Technically, you've made a copy, but the same number of people are in possession of the music (1).

Doriano, the issue then becomes you've given away the physical thing which allowed you to make a digital copy. The 2nd person doesn't pay for the CD, the band gets no royalties, etc... and now TWO people are in possession of something for which only one person paid. Copying the CD to your computer and then giving away the physical media is like installing MS OFfice and then giving away the CD for someone else to install. It's not OK.

[Jason]

Let's assume that it's OK to make a digital copy of music you own, for your own personal enjoyment. You've purchased a CD, and the band and recording label and all those people get money for that. Technically, you've made a copy, but the same number of people are in possession of the music (1).

Doriano, the issue then becomes you've given away the physical thing which allowed you to make a digital copy. The 2nd person doesn't pay for the CD, the band gets no royalties, etc... and now TWO people are in possession of something for which only one person paid. Copying the CD to your computer and then giving away the physical media is like installing MS OFfice and then giving away the CD for someone else to install. It's not OK.

I agree.

[Pouye]

I know where record companies stand, and I'm not for doing things illegally, but I do think there is a difference between purely digital media (video/sound/data) and physical media (tapes, records, CDs, DVDs, etc.). With physical media, you have a "thing" to sell -- product that actually costs someone something to make -- like a chair, table, etc. Companies that make dining sets have to first put a lot of money into designing, engineering and tooling - and then they produce a prototype. That prototype then is usually mass-produced, using the most cost-effective means they can utilize. This is similar to a band making music. A lot of time goes into writing, designing, engineering and producing the music. Then they figure out the most cost effective way to distribute and sell it. However, unlike the dining set makers, who have to continually buy raw materials and physically make each replica of the original, the digital age has transformed the physical medias of tapes and CDs into simple, compact digital files. These files, in and of themselves, are simply binary data codes -- no raw materials, no true physical objects. They can be duplicated infinitely, and with virtually no effort whatsoever. The duplication process doesn't cost the musicians anything -- unlike a company that makes dining sets. It also takes very little labor on the part of the record companies (machine or human), either -- unlike the dining set company which has to always have either robots or humans manufacture their product.

It used to be that cutting a record was like making a table. It was a physical process, and you sold each vinyl unit like you would chairs. You were buying a physical object that had to have a manufacturing process, with all of the overhead of a manufacturing process for any other physical object. The prices of the object reflected, in part all of the overhead in producing it.

Now, it is possible to simply remove all overhead, production, etc. from the process by making it a digital media. So in that sense, I have a hard time with artists charging the same amount for their music (or more) than they used to when they had to make thousands of physical copies to sell. It would be like a company who made $1000 dollar dining sets that figured out a way to instantly duplicate them for virtually nothing, using no raw materials and virtually no labor. Should they still sell them for $1000 bucks each? I don't think that is very fair to those who still have to manufacture them them the "real" way. They should drastically lower their prices, or someone will figure out how they are doing it and do it themselves -- exactly what file sharing is!

It all comes down to money -- what people think music/video/etc. should be worth. There is actually little inherent value in digital media. It is artwork -- and what drives the price of artwork is the consumers in the market, not the artist. Record companies are trying to set their prices based on what they think the music (now in digital format) is worth, not what the market thinks it is worth. The backlash is file sharing.

I think there is a lot of learning that must take place, and after this digital era has truly evolved, there will need to be huge compromises made if the record companies and the movie industries are going to survive at all. We are already seeing things like Itunes -- a compromise that has good potential. However, I can't see Itunes lasting, either. The future will have to be in selling other products that relate to the media, rather than the "inherently worthless" media itself. Just like radio stations, who do not charge each individual per song that they deliver to your ears (because it is impossible), they make money through advertising. TV stations that send free signals over the airwaves give their media to your eyes and ears freely... but you have commercials to deal with. Internet access used to be billed by the kilobyte (mine still is, actually -- in Papua New Guinea), but they realized that faster, and more free (unlimited) actually made them more money in advertising.

Someday the digital media industry will figure it out. In the mean time, let them shoot themselves in the feet for a while first. In retail, the consumers will alway win eventually. Always.

Rock

[middletree]

What about burning the music and then giving away the cd?

I think you are getting some terms mixed up.
Just to clarify, to "burn" means to take files from your Hard Drive and place them onto a CD. If you are talking about making copies on your hard drive from the CD, then that is known as "ripping."

You rip songs from a CD, and burn them to a CD.

[clemsontigers23]

The only time I ever burn CDs is for personal use. If I have a CD in my car but I want to listen to it in the house too, then a burn a copy for the house and one for the car. I have a 6-disc CD changer in my car, but because I got so many CDs for Christmas, I had a hard time deciding which ones to put in my car. I got two Skillet CDs, so to free up a space, I put both of them on one CD, minus a couple of songs I wasn't crazy about. I don't think there should be anything illegal about that.

[Sam!]

The only time I ever burn CDs is for personal use. If I have a CD in my car but I want to listen to it in the house too, then a burn a copy for the house and one for the car. I have a 6-disc CD changer in my car, but because I got so many CDs for Christmas, I had a hard time deciding which ones to put in my car. I got two Skillet CDs, so to free up a space, I put both of them on one CD, minus a couple of songs I wasn't crazy about. I don't think there should be anything illegal about that.
I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. However, what you and I htink about what should be legal doesn't actually determine naything.

If it is determined that the act you describe is illegal, then it's important as Christians that we stop doing it, and work to get the law changed to something reasonable.

Which, being a democracy, certainly seems reasonable.

[Yippy]

So, it is illegal to transfer songs to your hard drive? Isn't that how you get tunes on your ipod? I have tons of music on my PC, because my kids have ipods. They buy CDs, "rip" them, then put them on their ipods. Also, I was told and have read that you can burn a CD for yourself. I burn them all the time, because I've had so many scratched that I burn them now to use in the car. I also worked in a ceramic studio that has a lot of dust, so I'd burn my favorites and bring them to work.

If this is true, I had no idea I was doing anything criminal.

[lilmikey]

Opinions anyone???

Their just huffing and puffing there is no way on God's earth that they are going to track down every person who does this.

If thats the case than half the music in my collection would be confiscated and I'd be arrested. I hardly ever buy CDS most of my stuff comes from internet or the library.

yeah sure Im going to jail! Pleasssseeee

[Sam!]

So, it is illegal to transfer songs to your hard drive? Isn't that how you get tunes on your ipod? I have tons of music on my PC, because my kids have ipods. They buy CDs, "rip" them, then put them on their ipods. Also, I was told and have read that you can burn a CD for yourself. I burn them all the time, because I've had so many scratched that I burn them now to use in the car. I also worked in a ceramic studio that has a lot of dust, so I'd burn my favorites and bring them to work.

If this is true, I had no idea I was doing anything criminal.
The RIAA's opinion is that you're doing something illegal. I guess it hasn't been worked out fully in the court system yet as most of the decisions have involved people who have redistributed the music.

Mikee, just because they haven't or won't catch you doesn't make what you're doing right. Nothing about this law (if RIAA's position is upheld) is objectively unjust in the eyes of God. Though it is not what we want, Christians ought to submit to the authority they are under in this case.

[middletree]

I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. However, what you and I think about what should be legal doesn't actually determine anything.

And what the RIAA thinks about what is legal doesn't determine anything, either. The RIAA has only recently changed their position on this. In the past, they said that home copying was fair use. Additionally, in the Sony Betamax case from the early 80's, the Supreme Court ruled that copying movies from broadcast TV for home use, when not sharing those tapes with anyone, is fair use.

Most legal experts believe that the Betamax ruling was wide enough to cover copying music for personal use, whether it's taping on cassettes or ripping to a hard drive. Again, this is all contingent upon the user not giving or loaning the copied music or the original CD to anyone outside the home.

Back to the RIAA: they are not the law, nor are they lawmakers. Just because they have recently changed their position doesn't make home copying an illegal act. In fact, no US Laws or court rulings have ever said that such actions are illegal.

This latest action is a desperate action by a group of companies trying to hold onto a business model that no longer works.

[Yippy]

That's a relief.

[Sam!]

And what the RIAA thinks about what is legal doesn't determine anything, either. The RIAA has only recently changed their position on this. In the past, they said that home copying was fair use. Additionally, in the Sony Betamax case from the early 80's, the Supreme Court ruled that copying movies from broadcast TV for home use, when not sharing those tapes with anyone, is fair use.

Most legal experts believe that the Betamax ruling was wide enough to cover copying music for personal use, whether it's taping on cassettes or ripping to a hard drive. Again, this is all contingent upon the user not giving or loaning the copied music or the original CD to anyone outside the home.

Back to the RIAA: they are not the law, nor are they lawmakers. Just because they have recently changed their position doesn't make home copying an illegal act. In fact, no US Laws or court rulings have ever said that such actions are illegal.

This latest action is a desperate action by a group of companies trying to hold onto a business model that no longer works.
I never said RIAA was the determining factor. What they think matters, but only a little--after all, if they didn't care then this wouldn't be in the courts in the first place. Now that it's there, who knows what the Supreme Court will decide? Even if a lower court rules that Betamax does apply, that is no guarantee the Supreme Court will not overturn their previous ruling.

Lilmikee's opinion that the legality of the act doesn't matter is flat-out wrong. If the copying is illegal, it doesn't matter whether the government is going to come knock on his door. If he is a follower of Christ, then he ought to submit to the law of the land since in this case it doesn't come close to violating God's ideas of justice.

[clemsontigers23]

We'll see what the Supreme Court rules. If they rule that it's illegal to rip CDs to your computer, then 99.9% of my iTunes library would have to be deleted. I don't think that's right. I'm not sharing any files. I'm not burning them for others. They're going on my iPod, which I also paid for.

[middletree]

Now that it's there, who knows what the Supreme Court will decide?

The Supreme Court is very big on precedents, which is why I mentioned those other cases.

Lilmikee's opinion that the legality of the act doesn't matter is flat-out wrong.

I agree with that. I just don't see any evidence that this particular act is illegal.


My main point, though, is that I think the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot. If they push on this issue--specifically, telling people not to burn their own copies of purchased CDs--they are in for such bad press that they may never recover. Essentially, they're going after paying customers. It could cost them much more in goodwill and image than they could ever recover from lawsuits.

[maui sista]

Don't "they" make enough money already?????? I mean come on, just to go to a concert it is like 75 dollars for the "cheap seats" I would like to see "them" break into my house a fine me for what I am doing on my computer.:rolleyes:

[middletree]

Concert money doesn't go to record labels. The RIAA is made up of the 4 remaining major record labels.

[lilmikey]

sorry I do get a little p-oed when it comes to this kind of stuff. . Some download music and some are against it I personally dont give a hoot what the RIAA thinks. And by the way most of the stuff I got are from the library and I might find a few things here and there from "underground" or free mp3 sites. I also convert youtube videos to mp3s online. And alll my Glass Harp stuff is from the artist's website. I dont make it a whole heck of a habit of "pirating" music. If I cant find it online I buy it thats the plain truth.

[middletree]

I'd say that copying music from the library is definitely stealing. It doesn't belong in the discussion here, because what this thread is about is people copying music that they have legally purchased.

[lilmikey]

Whats the difference between checking out a dvd or cd a gajillion times because you like it than rather burning it once and save yourself a gajillion trips and besides the library does belong to the public if I am not mistaken

[middletree]

Whats the difference between checking out a dvd or cd a gajillion times because you like it than rather burning it once and save yourself a gajillion trips and besides the library does belong to the public if I am not mistaken

When you read a book, then return, it, they have the only copy. When you copy music, you return the CD, then there are two copies. But only one got paid for.

[pamcharlie]

I am hoping that the movie industry will do the same thing because there was these guys at this course i was at last year and the year before and they were both downloading and possibly selling downloaded movies that hadn't come into the country yet to other students and apparently that is illegal and takes away alot from the movie industry. so i really think the best thing to do is to see the movie at the cinema and then pay for it when it goes on sale at the dvd stores. Anyway Good night from new zealand

[ausgirl]

So, some of you seem to believe that it is your right to download whatever you like for free. What harm is it?

I wonder what the band, who are providing this site, who rely on their fans to purchase and actually pay for their music would have to say if everyone decided to take this view and get their music for free?

On guarantee - there would be no Third Day if people didn't buy their music! Yes they make money from concerts, but if there weren't CDs to begin with, the music wouldn't be in the market to encourage fans to see concerts.


And a question - to those of you who may be photographers, or artists, or authors. If someone put your images, works on the net for everyone to download for free - how would you feel? Broke for one!

[ausgirl]

Whats the difference between checking out a dvd or cd a gajillion times because you like it than rather burning it once and save yourself a gajillion trips and besides the library does belong to the public if I am not mistaken
Because the library is a service paid for by your government, the library may be a public service, but you don;t own the goods they provide. They have paid for that one Cd, if they have 5000 users and 4000 of those decided they could burn that CD, that's 4000 sales the author of the CD dips out on!

[ausgirl]

I'm sorry guys, but it's illegal so to do it is a sin plain and simple.

[Jason]

And a question - to those of you who may be photographers, or artists, or authors. If someone put your images, works on the net for everyone to download for free - how would you feel? Broke for one!

I would be very upset. I once had a high school friend that was contemplating buying one of two of my horse artwork prints for her daughter. I had posted them on our high school class web site (sort of like the boards here) for her to see. She soon said about one:

"I like this one too.
I printed these on paper for Emily... she saw them with her friends Megan & Mackenzie (who are leasing a horse and are taking lessons) They ALL loved these...
Emmie liked them so much she put holes in the walls of her newly painted room to hang them... They are on her pin board now :)"

While I was happy that three little girls loved my artwork, I was crushed because it appeared that my friend was not going to buy my artwork but just print out what I had on the internet.

Thankfully, I shared my concern with a mutual friend who intervened and found out that the first friend was still going to buy my artwork and just printed out the computer image so her daughter could see it better. She did indeed buy my artwork and now the kids in her neighborhood think she's cool because she went to high school with a (as they call me) "famous artist."

I now put a transparent watermark in the middle of all my large images on my web site. You can still get a good look at the artwork, but it would look pretty ugly if you printed it out and hung it on the wall.

I make very little from each sale of my artwork, so every sale is important.

An example of my watermarked images:

[middletree]

I'm sorry guys, but it's illegal so to do it is a sin plain and simple.

I agree with you re: downloads and the library thing. But the original topic in this thread was about copying music that you bought fair and square. For the RIAA to now say that's illegal is ridiculous.

[cheewiee]

This whole thing is lose lose for the fans and the artists...

Right now when I buy a CD I spend 12-14 dollars on a whole album. If a court actaully upholds this argument, I won't ever buy another CD again. I will just buy the songs I like from iTunes.

I think alot of people think like me on this too, which means the album (a compilation of 8-12 songs) will cease to exist. I think this will make it tougher on the artist. They will either make less money, or will be forced to come up with better songs...

What I don't understand, is what's the difference between me buying a CD and putting the song on my iPod, vs. downloading the song and putting it on my iPod. Either way I am going to have multiple copies....

[Jake]

Right now when I buy a CD I spend 12-14 dollars on a whole album. If a court actaully upholds this argument, I won't ever buy another CD again. I will just buy the songs I like from iTunes.



That's what I've started doing now. It's worth spending 15 bucks for an iTune card to be sure that I only get songs that I enjoy.

[danbos]

Right now when I buy a CD I spend 12-14 dollars on a whole album. If a court actaully upholds this argument, I won't ever buy another CD again. I will just buy the songs I like from iTunes.

That would be true for me as well. Right now I just buy the CD because I don't have(and don't want) a credit card and I don't feel like going though the hassle of buying a gift card and then having to download the music and whatnot, but if they uphold it, I guess I'll have to start doing that. I actually don't listen to my CDs very often. I buy them and rip them onto my computer. I don't have a CD player in my car, so I either listen to them on my mp3 player when I'm away from home or my computer when I'm at home.

[Yippy]

I agree with you re: downloads and the library thing. But the original topic in this thread was about copying music that you bought fair and square. For the RIAA to now say that's illegal is ridiculous.
I agree. Not only did you buy it fair and square, but you're copying it for your own personal use. Why should they care how you listen to the music you bought? Whether it be on your PC or ipod, you still paid for it. It is ridiculous.

[SmileyFreak1981]

This is a long post, but for the love of everything good and holy I really, really dislike the RIAA because of, frankly, the crappy way they've handled the issues surrounding the digitization of music. They irritate me to no end.

This development is destroying my passion for music more and more. Seriously, I'm sure that I am not the only one who is not downloading anything illegally while also buying LESS CDs at the same time.
You're not.

I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. However, what you and I htink about what should be legal doesn't actually determine naything.

If it is determined that the act you describe is illegal, then it's important as Christians that we stop doing it, and work to get the law changed to something reasonable.

Which, being a democracy, certainly seems reasonable.
Record companies throw a lot of money into lobbying in Washington. Can we compete with that?

Me ripping a CD to my computer for my own personal use is legal "fair use" under copyright law, in spite of the position of the RIAA. If the big record companies have their way, in the future it won't be, along with a lot of other things that are "fair use" at the moment.

...This latest action is a desperate action by a group of companies trying to hold onto a business model that no longer works.
Exactly. They failed to innovate...they failed to see the emerging technology as a new business model, and as a consequence are now playing a slow, painful game of catch up.

Don't "they" make enough money already?????? I mean come on, just to go to a concert it is like 75 dollars for the "cheap seats" I would like to see "them" break into my house a fine me for what I am doing on my computer.:rolleyes:
Concert money doesn't go to record labels. The RIAA is made up of the 4 remaining major record labels.
Actually, record companies are writing in percentages of concert ticket sales and merchandising (which have traditionally been untouched by labels) into recording contracts for new artists.

On guarantee - there would be no Third Day if people didn't buy their music! Yes they make money from concerts, but if there weren't CDs to begin with, the music wouldn't be in the market to encourage fans to see concerts.

And a question - to those of you who may be photographers, or artists, or authors. If someone put your images, works on the net for everyone to download for free - how would you feel? Broke for one!
People will buy good music that is worth their dime.

I put my photos up on Flickr...people can steal those. I've put photos of my artwork online previously. I put my poetry/song lyrics online. But I choose to do that. People can -- and will -- steal that stuff. That's a part of the risk you take in putting your "intellectual property" online.

However, if I were a professional singer (which would be a dream come true and is something I'd love to do), I wouldn't be relying on music sales to make my living. I'd be working on a stellar stage show and selling cool merch to earn the dough. If you want to make money, you have to be in the business of selling your brand and the experience of your brand, which happens to involve music. Not selling music, which happens to involve t-shirts and concerts.

Because the library is a service paid for by your government, the library may be a public service, but you don;t own the goods they provide. They have paid for that one Cd, if they have 5000 users and 4000 of those decided they could burn that CD, that's 4000 sales the author of the CD dips out on!
While I agree that piracy causes loss in sales, I would argue that a vast majority of the pirated music wouldn't have been bought anyway. Which furthers the argument that prices should be lowered to encourage people to buy legit copies of digital music.

This whole thing is lose lose for the fans and the artists...

Right now when I buy a CD I spend 12-14 dollars on a whole album. If a court actaully upholds this argument, I won't ever buy another CD again. I will just buy the songs I like from iTunes.

I think alot of people think like me on this too, which means the album (a compilation of 8-12 songs) will cease to exist. I think this will make it tougher on the artist. They will either make less money, or will be forced to come up with better songs...

What I don't understand, is what's the difference between me buying a CD and putting the song on my iPod, vs. downloading the song and putting it on my iPod. Either way I am going to have multiple copies....
The album already is ceasing to exist. Digital download sales were up, while physical CD sales were down in 2007. I think this will allow the cream of the crop to rise, and those people actually creating good songs will win, where the people whose records consist of 2 singles and 10 mediocre filler songs will be weeded out. That is good for the artistry of music.

There isn't a difference between you buying a CD, ripping it to your computer as an MP3, and putting it on your iPod versus downloading a song from iTunes and putting it on your iPod...the RIAA just wants you to think there is.

--------------------

Next, if we can get rid of DRM (I buy DRM free whenever possible), and make it so when music is released for sale Online that it's for sale no matter what country you happen to be in at the time, we'll be good.

[Genna14]

The way I see it, you're doing all the copying yourself and only for personal use. Its legal as far as I'm concerned.

Also, the statement on CD covers says that copying for PERSONAL use is ok. Its when you're redistributing music and making money that it becomes illegal.

I personally feel no convictions about putting music on my computer to enjoy while I'm sitting here working on it. I make personal CDRs all the time.

For those of you who are condemning others who put music on their personal computers, that's God's place to judge, not yours. Let them work it out with God in their own hearts.

For those of you in my situation, lets not be a stumbling block for the others who do feel a conviction.

[pamcharlie]

I think it is so wrong

[mindyhere]

I have A LOT of music on my pc. The first thing that I do when I buy a cd is rip it onto my computer. I listen to music all day long as I work, and I'd simply wear out my DVD-Rom from use if I didn't rip the CDs.

And of course it's nice to be able to shuffle music, have continuous play etc. I'm not sharing my music, or burning copies for anyone - they are all for person use, so I dont' feel I'm harming anyone by doing this.

It's unsettling to hear it declared that this is unacceptible... *sigh*

[NurseBettyLu]

I have a lawyer friend who specializes in copyright law, and he explained it to me like this: You buy the music, it's yours. You can manipulate your music however you like, as long as you don' affect the marketability of the original product. For example: My sister buys a Daughtry cd and rips it to her hard drive. Fine. Then she syncs it to her mp3 so she can listen to it while she runs. Still okay. Then say I go over to her house and hear the music playing on her computer and say, "Hey, I really like that!" She goes over to the bookcase, finds the Daughtry cd, and gives it to me. Whoops! She's just reduced the marketabilty of that cd because now I'm not going to buy one. Did'nt happen like that since I don't care for Daughtry. But you know it happens. No sharing, folks. It's stealing. New clear, fair copyright laws need to be made. And the RIAA should go soak its collective head.

[Yippy]

I have A LOT of music on my pc. The first thing that I do when I buy a cd is rip it onto my computer. I listen to music all day long as I work, and I'd simply wear out my DVD-Rom from use if I didn't rip the CDs.


I've scratched so many CDs (& my kids have) that I copy them now & keep the originals safe. Right now my CD album for the car is in police evidence. Thankfully, a lot of my music was copied, but a lot of it wasn't. I've been without a lot of music that I love for over a year now.
Have I said "a lot" enough?

It's unsettling to hear it declared that this is unacceptible... *sigh*
It's unacceptable to the RIAA. Under copyright law, it is not...yet (from what I've read in and outside of this thread).

For now, it's okay to rip a CD & burn it for personal use. 'Not okay to give it away.

[Pouye]

And what the RIAA thinks about what is legal doesn't determine anything, either. The RIAA has only recently changed their position on this. In the past, they said that home copying was fair use. Additionally, in the Sony Betamax case from the early 80's, the Supreme Court ruled that copying movies from broadcast TV for home use, when not sharing those tapes with anyone, is fair use.

Most legal experts believe that the Betamax ruling was wide enough to cover copying music for personal use, whether it's taping on cassettes or ripping to a hard drive. Again, this is all contingent upon the user not giving or loaning the copied music or the original CD to anyone outside the home.

Back to the RIAA: they are not the law, nor are they lawmakers. Just because they have recently changed their position doesn't make home copying an illegal act. In fact, no US Laws or court rulings have ever said that such actions are illegal.

This latest action is a desperate action by a group of companies trying to hold onto a business model that no longer works.

Agreed. Well said.

[Genna14]

I have A LOT of music on my pc. The first thing that I do when I buy a cd is rip it onto my computer. I listen to music all day long as I work, and I'd simply wear out my DVD-Rom from use if I didn't rip the CDs.

And of course it's nice to be able to shuffle music, have continuous play etc. I'm not sharing my music, or burning copies for anyone - they are all for person use, so I dont' feel I'm harming anyone by doing this.

It's unsettling to hear it declared that this is unacceptible... *sigh*
I totally am with you there. My whole family puts CDs on the comp. Mom has a brand new MP3 player so she can listen to the Bible and Christian music at work.

And I repeat, ripping music onto your personal computer for PERSONAL use only is LEGAL. Every CD cover I have states that it is only illegal when you're MAKING PROFIT from the copies of the songs.

[Jason]

I totally am with you there. My whole family puts CDs on the comp. Mom has a brand new MP3 player so she can listen to the Bible and Christian music at work.

And I repeat, ripping music onto your personal computer for PERSONAL use only is LEGAL. Every CD cover I have states that it is only illegal when you're MAKING PROFIT from the copies of the songs.

Distributing to others is also illegal, whether or not a profit is made.

[clemsontigers23]

I download stuff I can't find anywhere, like if a band has a track on a soundtrack that can't be found anywhere else, like iTunes. I also download some b-sides if there's no other way to get them. That's about it. I don't see anything wrong with that because nobody's losing money. If they decided to make a CD with b-sides (like The Killers did with Sawdust) then there would be something wrong with it, but right now there's no other way to find it unless you buy it from a 3rd party, in which case the band doesn't get any money.