Slashdot Mirror
Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing
LKM writes "Sony seems to think we should not be allowed to rip CDs we own to our iPods. In fact, doing so is stealing, and we should all re-buy songs, preferably one copy for each device. Says Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG: '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'.'
I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!"
In Canada we've paid the copyright levy for years for the "right" to do exactly this. They can't have it both ways. Either take our money via the levy and permit it, or take the money via second purchases but not both.
the copyright act allows for format transfer. usual restrictions apply.
sony sucks.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
"Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
Tell Jennifer what you think of her - (212) 833-7362
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1
Actually, according to copyright law in most places and glossing over the use of "stealing" for "copyright infringement", yes, making those mix tapes was technically illegal. This is one reason I believe places like Europe need something closer to US-style fair use exemptions for copyright, instead of the watered-down, half-hearted framework allowed under the EUCD.
If you read between the lines of the Gowers report in the UK, for example, it sounds a lot like his team concluded that this was justified, but felt that they could only explicitly advocate changes that weren't contrary to the overarching EU framework. Thus they proposed an exemption for format shifting (which, incidentally, the big record labels already publicly said they'd turn a blind eye to in the UK — how does that fit with the Sony lawyer's statement here?). However, they did not go as far as proposing what I would like to see: a more general private use exemption, where essentially once you've got legitimate access to some content for yourself, any convenience copies for personal use are OK (format shifting, back-ups, mix tapes, etc.) but broadcast or distribution to others is still against the rules without a suitable additional licence. It seems to me that this is entirely consistent with the basic principle of copyright, and the only harm it does to content providers is to screw those who want people to pay for the same thing multiple times based on legal technicalities.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fixed that for you, you'd be sued by R.H. Donnelley, the phone book people. R.R. Donnelley is North America's Largest printer.
- It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
- It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
- Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
- The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
- The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
I enjoy that they felt the need to put "right" in quotes, perhaps as a safety precaution in case any lawyer pointed out to them that, in fact, they have no idea what our actual rights are.How can you take a sentence fragment, in support of a part of the law that protects manufacturers and distributers, and turn it into " It's legal for consumers to make noncommercial recordings." That is not what that section of the law says.
See my post above - I agree that copying CD's is legal under fair use doctrines, but this particular passage has nothing to do with that.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I think Sony actually DID sue itself at one point, but I can't remember the reference. When it got in front of a judge and he finally figured out the real identities of both parties, he dismissed the case, with some choice words IRC.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Nope, because they don't see any possible issues with what they're saying. Take this wonderful example from NBC/Universal's counsel.
"NBC/Universal general counsel Rick Cotton suggests that society wastes entirely too much money policing crimes like burglary, fraud, and bank-robbing when it should be doing something about piracy instead."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070615-copyright-coalition-piracy-more-serious-than-burglary-fraud-bank-robbery.html?bub
I think the best way to view these people is to imagine what happen if someone from the distant past were to come in to our time. For example, Jews from 1000BC or a Kansas school board from 2006. Both groups would have some bizarre views of the world, probably arguing with passion that heliocentrism and evolution are totally false. They may even advocate burning at the stake for people consorting with evil by using post-it notes or computers.
The legal counsel and the PR departments of these record companies face a similar handicap, in that they can't possible adjust to our time. We need to develop a time machine so we can return them to a time they understand
-- Using the preview button since 2005
You can tell the PS3 to rip the contents of a CD to the PS3's harddrive. It can do it automatically when you insert the CD into the drive.
Not only that, you can tell it to rip MP3 (read: no DRM), which you can then copy off onto other devices. My jaw hit the floor.
God Fucking Damnit
Sony is the same company responsible for the court case that defined video-taping a broadcast as legitimate fair use. This precedent has been used to justify making tapes of music legitimately owned on other media to use in cars and portable players like say Walkmans... Someone at Sony hardware needs to walk over to their music division and have a stern talking to with them... That or remove the monitor and record loops from all the ampliphiers and kill the dual tape deck boxen, and the DVRs with built in DVD recorders, and ...
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Actually, it goes back to the printing press. When Gutenberg invented his press, it didn't just print bibles. Among other things, it allowed people to make very cheap, identical(!) copies of sheet music (which, at the time, was the closest thing they had to recordings). The market was flooded with "pirated" copies of sheet music, and I guess it was a problem for music writers for some time.
Freedom of speech is really freedom of expression. One doesn't express themselves through plagiarism.
/. posters dredge up that hoary Ben Franklin quote in order to express themselves?), and copyright infringement is not the same thing as plagiarism anyway. Indeed, plagiarism, where not infringing, is perfectly legal. It might be bad for your reputation, but you can do it all you like.
So you're saying that if I want to print a copy of Romeo and Juliet, that the government can arbitrarily decide to prevent me from doing so, and can in fact exercise prior restraint against me, because I do not have a right to do so?
If you think that, you must be delusional.
Further, I can express myself perfectly fine using the words of others (e.g. how many
Your argument has made you look silly. You may wish to do something about that, e.g. learning about the subjects you're talking about before you next open your mouth. Up to you, of course.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.