The changing definition of the CD
This article in the Washington Post has been picked up everywhere:
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
From the article:
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 [RIAA] 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.”
This is an attempt to redefine the nature of a CD. And it is the second attempt to do this. Sony made the first attempt to redefine the CD back in October:
Sony BMG’s chief anti-piracy lawyer: “Copying” music you own is “stealing”
From the article:
Pariser [Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG] has a very broad definition of “stealing.” When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, “When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’,” she said.
Countless studies have shown that the majority of music on portable music players like the iPod comes from sources other than download services. For most people, that music is comprised primarily of songs “ripped” from CD collections to MP3 or some other comparable format. Indeed, most portable music players comes with software (like iTunes) which is designed to facilitate the easy ripping of CDs. According to Pariser’s view, this is stealing.
Up until this year, the “fair use” idea had prevailed. The idea went like this: If you bought the CD, you “owned” a song and it was OK for you, personally, to put the song on different devices you owned. So you could listen to the song on your CD player, rip the song into your computer and then transfer the song to your MP3 player or iPod. As long as you didn’t give the song away to others (or sell it to others), you were within your rights. The “fair use” idea was so pervasive that both Apple’s iTunes software and Microsoft’s media player software will automatically rip CDs for you to put the songs on your hard disk.
Why might the music industry want to redefine the CD and make ripping illegal? Perhaps because the movie industry [MPAA] has been effective in making DVD ripping illegal. Unlike CDs, there is no easy, legal way (from Apple, Microsoft or anyone else) to rip a DVD. It appears that the music industry is going to now try to retroactively apply that same thinking to the CD.
Will they be successful? That will be something to watch in 2008. We will know that they were successful when we see ripping removed from iTunes and media player.