In another affront to its core audience, the RIAA has decided that it wants to try and crack the ten most famous lawsuits of 2007 list by suing people who have copied legally purchased songs for personal use. Today, as the Patriots rest from a so-far perfect season and the Cowboys are beginning to question whether they can win the NFC, the Drudge Report has given me a much more interesting thing to write about: Recording industry says illegal to transfer music from CD onto computer.... Naturally, I clicked on this one. See Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use.
In the article, the Washington Post has reported that the quote-unquote music industry is trying yet again to salvage their precious non-digital market by now arguing that one's personal use does not extend beyond simply listening to a purchased CD (which, let's be honest, nobody really does anymore). Now, I'm all for copyright protection, but this is just beyond ridiculous, at least as the article portrays this new legal position.
I can only hope this nonsense ruffles some intellectual property feathers. Based on this tenable position, it's hard to say how far down the rabbit hole the music industry has fallen: "Copying a song you bought is 'a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'' says [Sony BMG's chief of litigation]." If it's a personal copy, and it's not being shared, two things: (1) how are you going to discover these alleged infractions and (2) how do you reconcile this position with the idea of buying a digital copy and burning a CD, which is perfectly legal? See also RIAA adds digital downloads to gold/platinum sales certification. Hello?! It's the same difference!
With some deference to published legal articles on this topic, the Post article infers, ever so slightly, that this goofy litigation strategy may be a way for the courts to re-examine the VCR case and its progeny. I think that's a little bit of a stretch, but anything is possible. How these new legal tactics will fit within the Betamax and Grokster spectrum remains to be seen. Personally, I will be following this one a little closer and hope that next year (or within a couple of years) I get a client that is being sued for making a personal digital copy of a music CD they have purchased. That, my friends, will be a fun case to work on.
Am I alone in thinking that there is no way that the music industry can win this one? By all means, point me out to something (beyond a dissenting opinion) that a personal copy falls beyond the scope of fair use. As Ross Perot once said, "I'm all ears."
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The RIAA forgets about fair use and decides that digital is the devil
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I forgot to mention the best line in the article: "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." Exactly. Maybe they should spend their hard earned dollars on coming up with a better business plan. I'm sure there are some MBAs from Wharton who would be glad to help out.
I will never buy a CD again. I don't know why anyone would if they aren't allowed to make a copy of it.
I assume by now most music listening is done either through headphones connected to an iPod or the like, or via a computer connected to a speaker system.
Are the majority of people still loading CDs into a multi-disc CD player and shuffling through to find the song they want?
I don't think so. The RIAA just drove a nail in their own coffin. No one will buy CDs if they're going to get fined for making copies or if some DRM (Digital Rights Management) precludes them from making a copy.
RIAA might as well change their initials to RIP.
Post a Comment