Have you ever seen someone so badly in need of sex that you tell them to go get laid — even if they have to hump a tree like a dog in heat? Well, that’s how the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is acting right now. Either that or RIAA has been constipated for about 18 years. Either way, RIAA is becoming more sickening every time I see its name in print.
The latest rounds of RIAA lawsuits are over what amounts to personal copies of ripped CDs on computers.
If you check out a Washington Post article from December 27, 2007, you will see that RIAA is once again screwing — er, sorry … suing — it’s customer base in hopes of winning the customer’s hearts and minds, and in the process, burning down the homes of those same customers at the same time.
RIAA’s Web site has a notice on it that, as noted in the Washington Post, as well, says making a personal copy of a CD you legitimately purchase may not be a legal right, but, as far as RIAA is concerned, "won’t usually raise concerns," provided, of course, you don’t give away the music or lend it to anyone. But this very issue seems to be at the heart of the latest RIAA sue-happy campaign.
Jeffrey Howell, of Scottsdale, Arizona, kept about 2,000 mp3 files on his computer, RIAA alleges in its lawsuit against him. RIAA claims Howell kept those copies in a "shared" folder, and says, as a result of the songs being in the "shared" folder, that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer the music to a personally-owned computer.
In fact, the Washington Post quotes RIAA’s lead snake, er, attorney, Ira Schwartz, as saying that the mp3 files Howell had on his computer, made solely from CDs Howell himself purchased, are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
In the lawsuit, RIAA maintains the mp3 files are illegal because they were kept in a "shared" directory. So what does that mean, in reality? I have a home network, and on that network, I have folders that are "shared," but I am the only person with access to those folders. So if I have a network and am the only person with access to "shared" folders on a network, what’s the purpose of having a "network," you may be asking. Sometimes I work on another desktop computer, and when I do, I can open a specific directory on my computer, access the "shared" files, and continue working. Sometimes, even, I access my computer and its "shared" directories from my laptop. Just because a folder is "shared" does not mean thousands of people, nay, hundreds of people, or, for that matter, three other people, even have access to those directories.
Well, all that’s good and fine. RIAA is contradicting itself, which should come out in court. In fact, since RIAA’s own site says one thing and the organization is doing the opposite, that ought give a jury "reasonable doubt" about RIAA’s motives. Sort of.
If you read further on the RIAA site, you will find that RIAA seems to be engaging in double-speak. "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," it says.
Yes, making copies of music and distributing it — just like any other form of plagiarism — can cost you dearly. When it comes to making a personal copy, such as for backup, or, as in my case — I never listen to a CD, I listen to my mp3 files I keep in a directory of their own — that’s be held legal many times over by courts, going back for almost three decades.
According to testimony offered by Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, during a trial in Minnesota last year, she said: "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we an say he stole a song." Continuing, she said that copying a song from a CD you purchased is a "nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’."
The U.S. Copyright law allows for Fair Use, but also for personal copies. For example, I buy a book from PDQ Books. There’s a cool chart showing how to better manage my time on page 221-226. I am allowed to make copies of that chart. Why? Because I bought the book and am making copies of the material for my personal use. You cannot, however, at least not without permission, make copies and take to work or to your time management users group, nor can you reprint that chart in your office newsletter. Those latter examples are all outside the realm of personal use.
I think Pariser has a few screws loose, based on that comment. Courts have held that making personal copies for the purpose of making legally obtained recordings portable, as well, such as in the case of VCR tapes and CDs, as backups for expensive materials purchased.
As I said, RIAA really needs to get laid. The more it attacks its customers, the more RIAA is showing how far the ship has sunk. As they said in Titanic, when it comes back up, it’s going to rise up really high then shoot down to the bottom of the ocean. That’s when it’s gone. So, when RIAA appears to be riding high again — despite being an antiquated company that gave up all hope of joining the digital revolution and putting aside its old business model — watch out. It’s going to go down hard and fast. Or at least we can but hope. Goodbye RIAA.
Technorati Tags: RIAA, lawsuits, Minnesota, Scottsdale Arizona, Jeffrey Howell, mp3s, Sony, Sony BMG, personal use, fair use, Copyright Act, Jennifer Pariser, copies, Washington Post, customers, music, recordings, VHS, legally, liable, distributing, distribution, reasonable doubt, CDs, DVDs, purchased CD, ripped CD, backups
{ 0 comments… add one now }
You must log in to post a comment.