Record exec: Storing music on PC illegal

70salesguy said:
I finally broke down last year and bought an ipod. The main reasons were convenience for listening to my favorite music while flying on commercial airlines and the convenience of carrying the equivalent of 50 cds in my vehicle in a device so small.

I have had younger persons asked me where I got all the "cool old stuff" on my ipod. When I explained that they were all loaded from my own cds, they were surprised - guess they download off the inet.

I don't care what anyone says, I don't sell. loan, or swap cds and if I choose to load my ipod with songs from MY cds that I purchased - I have done nothing wrong and they have no issue.

The artist has received their royalty and the record company has their pound of flesh as well. All that has changed is the mode by which I play the music. I now carry 1 little ipod nano on the plane as opposed to a portable cd player and 50 cds.
Click to expand...

Spoken very responsibly! I would defend what you are doing anywhere. I am the same way. I have legal copies of everything I listen to. My sons know that if they download illegally and get caught, their college funds will be the first thing used to pay any fines. They actually like current product offerings, and between them own more than 200 legal CDs.

Contrast that with the numerous CL postings (at least in my area) offering Ipods, DVDs and even hard drives that are already preloaded to the hilt with music. All you need to do is specify the genre. Typically at a cost that is no more than $50 to $100 above the price of the hardware.
 
Man, Hammr7 you make a good argument and go out of your way to sound fair-minded and reasonable. However, this issue is neither fair nor reasonable. It doesn't matter that one is on the up-and-up and that he never "steals" other's intellectual property from an ethical point of view. "Discrete" and "personal" are irrelevant now. EVERYTHING is copyrighted, the mere act of duplicating, recreating, or re-conveying ANYTHING is potentially illegal. Ever you ever used a copy machine? Illegal. Pulled an image from the web? Illegal. Spun music for a party or function? Illegal. Played in a garage band? Illegal. Called a buddy during a game broadcast to rub it in? Illegal. The ramifications of completely eliminating fair use, which is largely gone in the digital era, are mind-boggling. Thanks, DMCA. Music is the tip of the iceberg, as technology allows others will follow. Just watch and see...


There are no ethics involved anymore. There is no right-and-wrong, only what you can extract from others and what you can get away with. Once lawyers and the courts are involved, it becomes all-out war. The new American Way. The RIAA position is insane, just look at their own words. Their actions are downright Gestapo. They are the enemy, fight them. Do everything you can to hurt them. Destroy. Kill. They will do the same to you, regardless of your morality.
 
There are no ethics involved anymore. There is no right-and-wrong, only what you can extract from others and what you can get away with. Once lawyers and the courts are involved, it becomes all-out war. The new American Way. The RIAA position is insane, just look at their own words. Their actions are downright Gestapo. They are the enemy, fight them. Do everything you can to hurt them. Destroy. Kill. They will do the same to you, regardless of your morality.
Click to expand...
Or your actual guilt!

As the RIAA openly stated, they're looking to make examples............. that my friends is INTIMIDATION!

EVERYTHING is copyrighted, the mere act of duplicating, recreating, or re-conveying ANYTHING is potentially illegal. Ever you ever used a copy machine? Illegal. Pulled an image from the web? Illegal. Spun music for a party or function?
Click to expand...
I'm wondering just where the legal ramifications would begin and end if i were demonstrating a system at AK fest by playing copyrighted music?

Will this become a future rule, that during AK sponsored events you may NOT play copyrighted music?

Will AK have a stake in the liability if members are using copyrighted music to demo their systems during an AK sponsored event like the annual fest?

Seems i remember a certain boat show being crashed and shut down by ASCAP/RIAA several years ago.
 
The point of the article is that there is NO SUCH THING AS A LEGAL COPY!!! You are admitting to an illegal act on an internet forum.
 
When and where will it ever quit????

Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios
Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on October 8, 2007 at 1:09 AM (printer friendly)


Source

The action against the Kwik-Fit Group has been brought by the Performing Rights Society which collects royalties for songwriters and performers.

At a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh a judge refused to dismiss the £200,000 damages claim.

Kwik-Fit wanted the case brought against it thrown out.

Lord Emslie ruled that the action can go ahead with evidence being heard.

The PRS claimed that Kwik-Fit mechanics routinely use personal radios while working at service centres across the UK and that music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.

It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright.

The Edinburgh-based firm, founded by Sir Tom Farmer, is contesting the action and said it has a 10 year policy banning the use of personal radios in the workplace.

Playing music

The PRS lodged details of countrywide inspection data over the audible playing of music at Kwik-Fit on more than 250 occasions in and after 2005.

It claimed that its pleadings in the action were more than enough to allow a hearing of evidence in the case at which they would expect to establish everything allegedly found and recorded at inspection visits.

Lord Emslie said: "The key point to note, it was said, was that the findings on each occasion were the same with music audibly 'blaring' from employee's radios in such circumstances that the defenders' [Kwik-Fit] local and central management could not have failed to be aware of what was going on."

The judge said: "The allegations are of a widespread and consistent picture emerging over many years whereby routine copyright infringement in the workplace was, or inferentially must have been, known to and 'authorised' or 'permitted' by local and central management."

He said that if that was established after evidence it was "at least possible" that liability for copyright infringement would be brought home against Kwik-Fit.

But Lord Emslie said he should not be taken as accepting that the PRS would necessarily succeed in their claims.
 
jocko_nc said:
The point of the article is that there is NO SUCH THING AS A LEGAL COPY!!! You are admitting to an illegal act on an internet forum.
Click to expand...
The point is that a Sony rep thinks there is no such thing as a legal copy. However, the RIAA had a suit against the Rio mp3 player makers and lost.

"The court also finds that the Rio works in harmony with the main purpose of the statute: "the facilitation of personal use." Citing the purpose behind the enactment of 17 U.S.C. § 1008, "[t]he Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." Cf., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (holding that the "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows using a VCR constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act." Thus, the court found that the Rio was not subject to the AHRA, and that the lower court had acted properly in denying an injunction. "

While this is not exactly the same thing as making a copy for the computer, it is one of the only cases that is similar (other than the Betamax case).

The new case that the RIAA won was based on distrubuting music on a P2P service which is a much different issue than simply making a copy for personal use.
 
U guys are missing the point:

It is not storing copywrite material on your computer that constitutes the wrong - it is the intent or the wrongful use of it that makes the wrong. In other words, if any of us stores his CD collection on a computer, euther for backup or instead of a CD player, there is nothing wrong with that, and that's fair use.

However, if any of us downloads a sharing software, it only means that we INTEND to share. Once we allow others to reach into our computer, it is like turning a blind eye, and that's what the record companys say.

We may agree with that or not.
 
I don't download music off the internet, don't ever intend to. Don't have any PTP programs on my computer and never will. I find too much good used music for cheap at the GWs and music stores.
But, I do rip music to my computer for downloading on my MP3 player and make copies of my vinyl on CDs and cassettes to listen to in my car.
But the RIAA will probably find a way to stop the sale of used vinyl, cassettes and CDs, so then I will just have to be satisfied with what music I have in my possession!
But, I will never buy any more new music to line the pockets of these Facist, jackbooted thugs! :nono::nono::nono:
 
The issue of copying is rather well resolved in law as unlawful. The remedies and exemptions are what is complex. Congress agreed that making a CD copy violated the law but rather than permit mass exposure to the industry policing set a remedy in expectation by adding a penalty for each recordable CD other than data CDs (never figured out the difference and hence no idea which I am purchasing). The industry tried for the same on hard drives but Congress found it too much of a stretch and did not allow a penalty to be added to each.

I remember as early as reel to reel, the issue being debated but at the time, the cost of a record and prerecorded tape were so close most companies did not pursue the issue as the piracy was so insignificant that it did not impact sales. Mostly persons used a reel to reel for personal preservation of the record, making a custom tape of selected songs or something off the radio. Almost no industry was created for reel to reel duping that violated the then existing copyright laws. When cassettes came out, it again came to debate but the music industry was seeing increased sales as a result of cassettes and hence not much of an issue. At the time, it was realized that younger persons were trading recordings and there was notice of illegal enterprising dupes but the overall effect was not that great on the industry. At the time, record sales actually increased for some time and then pre-recorded cassette sales offset the decline in record sales and overall sales of music continued to increase. Not sure if 4 and 8 track tapes raised an issue with them. Generally during this period the RIAA was going after public establishments playing music that was not subscribe to through Muzak. There were some hefty fines against places like dentists, retail stores, etc.

When iPods were released, the issue again hit Congress but found deaf ears. because of the penalty on CDs, you do not see as much furor over CD copies unless they are illegal copies, i.e. purport to be originals or being done in a commercial enterprise which was not within the scope of which the CD penalty was designed to compensate for.

The big difference between then and now is the web system with the ability to have a central depository from which so many can access music. Existing law is based on old technology as well as music companys' business models. Until such time as both are revised to incorporate and work with new technologies rather than trying to protect the old, there will exist the problems we are seeing. Whether you like it or not, the Sony rep was not incorrect in the statement and the RIAA does represent the interests of the musicians. However, like any guardian, the RIAA may need to realize what the ward needed back then is not in the ward's best interest today and it needs to change to meet current needs and interests or at least take a new approach to achieving them.

There have been some good personal points of view expressed and it shows that maybe the system needs to develop a new balance that insures an i.p. owner is fully compensated for his/her creativity and provide for our current society mores.
 
You all miss the point... It is not a matter of what the law is, what exactly constitutes fair use, what was your intent, or what is even ethical.

The point is that SONY believes it is illegal to store music on your computer. That is all that matters. Sony doesn't care what the law is. Sony doesn't care what is right. They will fight their fight and hope their argument wins. They obviously feel it is necessary to draw a line in the sand, all reason and sanity be damned. The process itself is the punishment.

If YOU find yourself being sued by Sony all that matters is that YOU is that you will be broke and that the law and the actual facts may not matter.
 
It's been said many times here and elsewhere, but the record companies are probably kicking themselves for adopting CD. Sure! Let's adopt a format that can be copied bit-perfect over and over again, compressed to small file sizes with relatively little loss in quality, and never wears out if properly handled. Of course, CD was introduced before the advent of the personal computer, so...

IME the music owned by most people these days is copied from CDs, both yours and your friends' - not downloads. We can't risk getting sued into oblivion.
 
legaleagel said:
It is not storing copywrite material on your computer that constitutes the wrong - it is the intent or the wrongful use of it that makes the wrong. In other words, if any of us stores his CD collection on a computer, euther for backup or instead of a CD player, there is nothing wrong with that, and that's fair use.

However, if any of us downloads a sharing software, it only means that we INTEND to share. Once we allow others to reach into our computer, it is like turning a blind eye, and that's what the record companys say.

We may agree with that or not.
Click to expand...

...but... according to the lady that works at Sony, ripping one song from your own cd to your computer is stealing and illegal... which is what this post is really about... we all know that ripping your own cd to your computer is NOT illegal.. I'm surprised the lady's lawer didn't point out the error of the sony execs statement... Wished this lady would have had a better lawyer..
 
it is the act of copying that constitutes the violation, not the use thereafter. In the US the law is applied equitably and fairness has no place. Hence, in the US 2 persons doing the same thing have the same liability under the law. The burden then shifts to the person to show the act falls within an exception. Therefore, the statement, and I have not sen the original, from the Sony rep may be correct and legally true but legal liability may attach depending on whether there is a defense that falls within an exception.

For those who do not agree with the outcome, there has been announced as I predicted an appeal. Do a little research and find out how to write and submit a brief as a friend of the court. Or, start a letter writing campaign to Congress to change the law.
 
Brian said:
Whether you like it or not...the RIAA does represent the interests of the musicians.
Click to expand...
Nope. The RIAA cares about making money. Ethics, morals and my feelings about how they go about their business have very little or no bearing on their practices. Protection of artists is a happy by-product of the company's doings, but I feel that any 'mission' statement like that is a pretense.

Musician's lawyers are about the only group that comes close to representing the interests of musicians. Maybe the AF of M, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom