Making backups of your own CDs is illegal according to Sony

[GallComp]

Now this is interesting.

Duluth, Minnesota — Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify. Pariser said that file-sharing is extremely damaging to the music industry and that record labels are particularly affected. In doing so, she advocated a view of copyright that would turn many honest people into thieves.

Related StoriesDigital Freedom Campaign to organize students against RIAA abuse programming note: I'll be on All Things Considered this afternoon
First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
Judge bars RIAA president from testifying in Capitol Records v. Thomas
Pariser noted that music labels make no money on touring, radio, or merchandise, which leaves the company particularly exposed to the negative effects of file-sharing. "It's my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000," she said, thanks to piracy. In Pariser's view, "when people steal, when they take music without compensation, we are harmed."

Pariser 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.

We've actually heard something similar to this view before. As part of the 2006 triennial review of the effectiveness of the DMCA, a number of content-related industries filed a joint reply with the government on the effectiveness of the DMCA and the challenges that lay ahead for copyright. The argument relating to CDs espoused in the joint reply could be summarized: although nothing has prevented consumers from making backups of CDs, this cannot be construed as authorization from the music labels for them to do so. Thus, there has been no authorization of said backups, and the coincidental ability to make backups currently should not be mistaken for fair use.

Pariser's views appear to be similar, insofar as she clearly suggests that consumers have no right to make backups of the music that they have purchased in CD form or even in download form.

[schwim]

It would only make sense that the labels would use someone like this for defining theft. If they had their way, we would purchase the cd, then pay per play.

They of course will take every chance to let you know that they want more money for the same product, and we as consumers will do everything we can to pay less for the same product. Such is the natural order of economics.

thanks,
json

[hammer_gaidin]

Interesting article.
I work as a wedding DJ on the side, and I have a interesting view on this subject. We have thousands of cd's and I just recently talked the owner into converting to a digital library. Well, after hours of ripping we have a huge library of music. Music that was all legally purchased throughout the past 10-15 years. The owner refuses to download music 'illegally', but will use online sources such as iTunes. However, as of late such online purchasing services are leading to more problems than they are worth. iTunes has converted a lot of their library mp4 format, which prevents us from playing the music through our djing software, I am forced to burn a disc through itunes then re-rip it back into mp3 format. If the copywrite ever offically changed so that those who 'backup', or convert media such as I did could actually be held for a crime that would be a sad day. I am an advocate of free music sharing, which is at least an understandable legal arguement on the industries part, but the day I get locked up for ripping songs off of a cd i bought they can go **** themselves.

[Dan]

That which you do not covet, buy nor pirate nor consume, they cannot use to manipulate either you, your fear or your financial resources.


Dan

[JN4OldSchool]

Pariser noted that music labels make no money on touring, radio, or merchandise, which leaves the company particularly exposed to the negative effects of file-sharing. "It's my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000," she said, thanks to piracy. In Pariser's view, "when people steal, when they take music without compensation, we are harmed."

Here is the clincher though. No mam, you are losing money because of your stupid policies. I used to buy 2-3 CDs a month. Not no more though. Not for years. Not with rootkits and strings and all the rest. Now I simply record radio cuts. Maybe it isnt as high quality, but with the whole world listening to compressed music these days anyway who cares? It is good enough to listen to. mz. Pariser, mam, you are the one who drove me to this! Like MS, you can blame anyone you want for your shortcomings, but YOU made your bed. And I wont play by YOUR rules. I hope Sony BMG goes under.