Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems CD Copying to Hard Drive deemed "Illegal"

While there have been a few additions to this story since the article below, the essence remains i.e. that the RIAA are making a Legal Argument that any copy you make of a CD to a hard drive is "illegal" and liable to thousands of dollars in damages

Hard to believe but worth digging out the other articles to look at the issues involved.............


Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


Who's Blogging�
By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

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.

Please excuse the following rant - it made me feel better.

Absolutely typical.

There are CDs which won't play on my 598 because they're not really CDs. I was mis-sold and lied to because they were in the CD section of the shop. Apparently this is to stop people copying them to a hard disc. The irony is that to get the bloody thing to play, you HAVE to make a copy of it to CD-R. What's even more amazing is that the 'protection' appears to do nothing to make the copy harder to perform. Not one extra key press; nothing. Their protection forces users to copy the CD they paid for, just to be able to hear it, and doesn't even hinder them when they do.

It really riles me. I have never pirated a CD/DVD/Software - anything. Not even lent a CD to anyone. But because I'm one of the legitimate customers who pay these idiots' salaries, I'm not allowed to have a music server, can't put my DVD-A's on a network and need an expensive solution to get a proper digital domain signal path for high resolution discs. What is the point of DVD-A being high resolution if you have to convert the bloody thing to analogue then back to digital to handle bass! Absolute idiocy.

And with all these handcuffs and restrictions, it is not one iota more difficult for a genuine pirate to make a copy! We're being told that Osama Bin Laden and Drug barons are the enemy. Can they not afford a modified player for the bazillions of copies they're making to kill our poor underfunded record exec's salaries and ruin the very fabric of our society? Are Simon Cowell's trousers really that expensive?

They won't be around much longer if this is their strategy. Suing your legitimate customers is not a sustainable business model. This act of desperation should be frightening off investors.

What's next - unauthorised public viewing for anyone who has a party? What about if my neighbours can hear through their walls? Do I need to buy a licence for that? At least they'll be going for the Vauxhall Nova drivers with the 20Hz sine generators in their boots.

And now I'll breathe in...........

Amen!

I second VK's religous undertones.

Whilst I do not own many (I can only name one - the Dido 'CD') copy protected CD's, my Meridian kit does not have an issue with any of them.

But the issue here isn't the ripping of CD's, the issue (and the context behind the lawsuit) is the ripping of CD's and then placing them in a shared folder that offers them out over Kazaa.

Rip CD's you own and keep them on your hard drive and for your personal use = no problem, rip CD's you own and keep them on your hard drive and let anyone on the Internet download them = problem.

Hutchingsp
Sorry to say that your comment above is NOT what the Legal Action is about. I thought the same until I did some digging behind the article. The action being taken is SPECIFICALLY about "Unauthorized Copies" of CD's being Illegal

I guess their position is neatly summarized by the Trial Testimony of the Sony Executive


I too think that the action is insane, but then again, I also thought that there was never any chance of the Jammie Thomas case resulting in damages of $220,000 ($9,500 per song) I never thought that the RIAA case would result in any more than a hand slap for the accused

Not that the Pharma companies need any defending, but contrast how their Drug Patents (even on "life saving" drugs) run out after a typical 7 Years of Market Viability (the Patent is longer, but it takes quite long to get the Product to Market Approved status)

So Drug Companies have their Patents and Royalties run out after seven years, while Brittany Spears get royalties on her "life saving" music for the rest of time.

Would love to hear a lawyer stand up and defend that one, even though they would likely queue to try and do so

Completely indefensible on all fronts, if you ask me. But then again, this post likely puts me on RIAA's hit list!!

How's this for timely? I've just read an article in The Times which addresses exactly this point - for the UK.

Obviously after my earlier post, I can hardly copy and paste it, but here's the link for the online version: Scroll down to 'Off-the record copying goes legit'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3142334.ece

It looks like it technically is illegal in the UK, too. But the government is looking into making it legal to 'format shift' media as long as it's for personal use.

Suddenly I'm listening to 'Don't Worry about the Government' in a whole new light.

Crap - I hope they don't come after me for copying their song title without a licence!

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I was going off this site Ten Reasons Why which seemed a rational way of interpreting it for a layman i.e. it entirely hinges on semantics and the fact the chap shared the files out which was not authorized.

No point arguing over it as, as I said I'm no lawyer�and may well be totally wrong, but from what I could interpret into plain English from the PDF of the brief it doesn't seem, to me, to imply that simply ripping the CD's is the problem, it was ripping them and putting them in his shared Kazaa folder.

In Australia, format shifting is still illegal.

Format Shifting or more literally CD Copying to CD-R or Hard Drive is "Illegal" is almost all Countries (certainly US, Europe, Japan, Australia etc.)

What makes this case Unique is that the Industry based RIAA are taking an action against someone who has COPIED the CD's

Without wanting to be argumentative with Hutchinsp, having read MANY different lawyers interpretations of the Action, the concensus happens to be that the RIAA are pursuing a 2 Tort Action against the guy for BOTH

a) Copying CD's to his Hard Drive

b) Facilitating the FURTHER copying of this material by placing it on his shared drive and then onwards to Kazaa

Hopefully the Judge / Jury rules against them and awards Costs / Damages against the RIAA for wasting their time!!!!

In Sweden, format shifting has been legal, as has been the mentioned "give a copy to a (close) friend. But, I guess the pressure on Sweden - even personally from a Mr. Bush - to change laws or interpret them differently has changed that. It was BTW not that long ago that downloading was legal, only uploading/sharing was illegal.

I thought copying a CD to a computer hard drive for your personal use is not illegal. Are you saying just doing this is violating the law?

I have a hard time swallowing that.

The RIAA is pursing an insane strategy. Their business model is outdated- plain and simple. Rather than figure out how to go forward, they are spending the money they do have to sue their customers and potential customers.

I am baffled by this.

Let me say two other things:
1. I do not think the Washington Post article says this is the current state of the law, simply an argument in a lawsuit- which it may become the state of the law.

2. The record companies developed the CD standard knowing it was an open standard for computer use. The copying to hard drives was forseeable and therefore I think while piracy is clearly wrong, someone "format shifting" a CD to their iPod should not be illegal. I think the record companys could or should foresee that this would occur.

btw- I still buy CDs.

best regards,
Jerry