RIAA: Copying CD to your computer is illegal

even if it is legally purchased...

[walkman]

[washingtonpost.com...]
"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."

[engine]

Oh dear - they really have no clue about how to change their business model, but only to continue to cling on to yesterday's world.

How many people have an MP3 player and copies of their legally purchased CDs: A good percentage, i'd wager!

It's time they thought of a new way to go forward.

[thecoalman]

Agree 100% Engine, but due to their lack of foresight it's going to get changed by the market and the customers and they are going to get left behind. Good riddance.

I'm sure more than few big name acts have taken notice of the success of Radiohead who made millions more than expected by cutting out the middleman and delivered a less expensive product to their fans. Going to be quite a few more jumping ship as those contracts run out.

[walkman]

Prince, did that too. It was funny because someone tried to make fun of him with "X sold 2 million more albums" (I'm making up the numbers) and he said, it matters how much is left in the bank more or less. Big label singers have gotten even less than 50 cents per CD and had to pay for expenses too. Think of much money a famous artist can make by selling a $7 album on say, Walmart?

[Dabrowski]

The price thing was funny, the Radiohead thing was a master plan. They made something like 10m in a week, by letting downloaders name their own price - even free.

Record companies are scared, because only they will lose out. Customers are paying less, and artists are making more. Who cares about the middle men leeching their pocket money from truly talented people?

[londrum]

it only really applies to established artists though. because they can generate all the airplay and advertisements and reviews themselves.

but how are brand new artists going to get all of that? they'll have to pay for it out of their own pocket. you'll always get a lucky few who can launch themselves on the internet, like the arctic monkeys, but 99% will still have to sign up to record companies.

[thecoalman]

That's a good point londrum but i tend to think of it differently. There's lots of avenues now for bands, 15 years ago even breaking out of the local market was tough but now they can market to the world and for all intents and purposes do it for free.

If the large corporations marketing these artists ceased to exist tomorrow there is still going to be bands that become popluar but by other means. You'll have bands that made it on merit alone instead of what some executive decided is to be popular.

What you really need is a shift in the way consumers get their music, instead of being blindly told what is good they need to go out and explore whats out there. You're going to have artists now that have grown up with the intenet and I think that will have great influence on how they decide to market themselves.

As I suggested I think many big name acts are going to jump ship and hopefully that trend continues downward through the ranks.

[Dabrowski]

Lily Allen is another one who found fame through MySpace. But thecoalman is right, people will find other ways. Going out to local gigs for example, many sucessful bands started out by playing in pubs.

The main role the labels play is deciding what is going to be the next 'good', and paying commercial stations to play their chosen tracks every 20 minutes.

Without this, radio stations and DJ's would have free choice. It would take longer for bands to become popular, but it would still happen.

[Rugles]

Any guilt I ever felt about downloading a song, is now gone.

I spent more money seeing live music last year than any other time in my 45 years. I prefer to give the bands my money and not the labels at this point.

Those guys are clueless.

[Rugles]

... and another thing.

There are some albums that I have purchased 3 times now, the vinyl, the cassette and then the cd. If they expect me to buy it again in the form of a digital download they must be sniffing glue.

[Jon_King]

The digital cat is out of the bag and there is no going back. These folks are simply trying to delay the inevitable... income from individual song and album CD sales will never be the same as when the format was proprietary (or more difficult to copy and distribute by individuals).

They will have to look to other revenue channels and they know that.

[edited by: Jon_King at 9:52 pm (utc) on Jan. 2, 2008]

[lgn1]

My question, if these songs were his own and he transfered them to his computer, and he was not sharing them, how did the RIAA find out that he had the songs.

Is the RIAA now using spyware to look at your computer, or what?

Fortunately, I live in Canada, where passive downloading of music is still legal, and also we have no DMCA or equivalent. Both the Liberals and Conservative government tried to introduce DMCA type bills, but fortunately, the bills were withdrawn after public outcry.

[WeaselyOne]

I confess I don't know an easy answer to the music issue but beating a dead horse with this type of lawsuit will not get record companies the results they are hoping for.

[thecoalman]

... and another thing.

There are some albums that I have purchased 3 times now, the vinyl, the cassette and then the cd. If they expect me to buy it again in the form of a digital download they must be sniffing glue.

This IMO is the real reason for DRM, preventing piracy is just a bonus. The moneymaker for these companies has always been reselling the same content. With the advent of digital it could last forever, slap some DRM on it and you give it "shelf life".

[phranque]

right on, rugles!
i see dozens of live shows every year.

and i do most of my music purchases directly - usually at the merch table.
there's no better way to put gas in the tank and food on the table of your favorite artist - sometimes literally!

[engine]

"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

[news.com...]

[weeks]

Yea, the Washington Post is getting ripped on this. Deservedly so, it appears. Copying CDs to your computer is not illegal and RIAA isn't saying that it is illegal.

[engine]

It appears the WP has printed a correction.

The Washington Post has backed off a story that erroneously accused the recording industry of trying to criminalize ripping CDs to a computer.

The Post issued a correction Saturday, more than a week after the paper triggered a wave of media coverage by claiming that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was trying to outlaw the very common practice of copying music from a CD onto a computer or iPod.

Washington Post says it 'incorrectly' reported RIAA story [news.com]

It's interesting how this story was dealt with. It could have been cleared up quite quickly, without all the fuss.