Washington Post sticks by RIAA story despite evidence it goofed
It's late on Wednesday evening and the Washington Post has yet to correct a story that accused the recording industry of trying to paint law-abiding music fans as criminals.
But the paper should make things right and soon.
Marc Fisher, a Post columnist, wrote on Sunday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserted in a legal brief that anyone who copies music from a CD onto their computer is a thief. The document, filed last month, was part of the RIAA's copyright suit against Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona resident accused of illegal file sharing.
Quoting from the brief, Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law. If it were true, the move would represent a major shift in strategy by the RIAA, which typically hasn't challenged an individual's right to copy CDs for personal use.
The problem with Fisher's story is that nowhere in the RIAA's brief does the group call someone a criminal for simply copying music to a computer. Throughout the 21-page brief, the recording industry defines what it considers to be illegal behavior and it boils down to this: creating digital recordings from CDs and then uploading them to file-sharing networks.
A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."
The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.
The Post story, which followed similar pieces in Ars Technica and Wired.com, has spurred scores of other media outlets to repeat the paper's erroneous assertion. Ironically, even typically anti-RIAA blogs, such as Engadget, Gizmodo and TechDirt have jumped in on the side of the RIAA.
"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."
After reading Lamy's statement, Fisher didn't back down.
He responded in an e-mail to CNET News.com: "The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."
He took one more shot before signing off: "Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."
Still, Fisher received little support from respected and independent copyright experts. William Patry, the copyright guru at Google--not exactly known as a lackey for copyright holders--wrote on his blog that the RIAA is being "unfairly maligned" in the Post story.
Patry does, however, caution that recent statements made by the RIAA and included in Fisher's story reflect the group's growing tendency to use language as a means of control.
Fisher quoted Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, who testified recently in court that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
Patry disagreed.
"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."
Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
RIAA would rather have all copied music banned, if they could. But, they can't afford to let the press say that is their intention.
Come on. You have to be kidding me that this is not calling us thieves. It most certainly is setting us up to be called criminals. I'm convinced.
"Today, CNET complains about Washington Post still not ?correcting? the article, although there was ?evidence it goofed?. I say: bollocks.
Let?s leave the lawyer talk to lawyers; I?ll make things real simple here, folks. It?s RIAA that?s muddying the water here. They?re the ones that are using doublespeak to make it increasingly confusing to everyone, creating an atmosphere of fear (and loathing) in which you can never be sure whether you?re stealing music or not. It?s no wonder that they get picked on by everyone with a brain: people are annoyed and unhappy about their politics, their lawsuits, and their murky statements on copyright.
The heart of the matter in this debate is whether RIAA is claiming that copying music you own to your own computer is illegal. Techdirt says it?s not so, Washington Post says it?s true. I have a somewhat different position on this one. The problem is that RIAA has done everything in their power to make us unsure of where exactly they stand on this matter, and they?ve done it on purpose.
Amidst this debate, how hard is it for RIAA to clearly say: no, we?re not going after personal copies? Yes, you can copy the stuff you own to your hard disk? Pretty damn easy. But here?s what they say (also noted in the Washington Post article) about it:
?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.?
So is it legal, or it just ?won?t usually raise concerns?? I?m not really sure, and I suspect neither are the users. And there lies the problem."
The Washington Post's Marc Fisher said something existed in the RIAA's argument on the Howell case that simply doesn't. Marc is a respected columnist but in this instance, he erred. There's no denying that. Anyway, thanks for reading.
.....sooooo what the heck does the RIAA think of the libraries that buy music cds and let me borrow them for a week?.... where does that fall since the library is "LENDING" me the cd... are they responsible to make sure that i don't copy it... do they have a responsibility to let the music industry know that i borrowed it from them... IS the library a criminal for having the cd that i borrow???
GAWD.. this stuff just makes my head go round and remind me why i no longer buy any music unless it's a CD from a garage sale for a buck or less.
sheesh. Lets get rid of all the big companies, have all the recording groups get a myspace for music site, where you ONLY have music groups/singers/etc so people can go there and check out EVERYTHING that is available. have each group that gets on the music site pay x amount to be on the site each year and to pay for site upkeep and there ya go... maybe i could finally find the music from some obscure german rock bands and some europop stuff that i've been searching for forever for... and not have to pay a bloody import tax and shipping amount MORE that the bloody cd.
those on a CD version of the same music? Could RIAA mistake a
legally downloaded file for one allegedly ripped from a borrowed
CD?
It is somewhat safe to say that the data (Other than the actual music) in downloaded or ripped songs are different. Also, most people that rip songs from CDs for their own use rip them at a greater bit rate than they would if they planned on uploading them since this affects file size and quality of the music file.
What happens if I copy that music to a shared folder that is only intended to be used on my local home network, behind a NAT? What happens if I want my Playstation 3 to play music in my living room from my shared folder on a computer in my den? I am a thief for that?
It is stupid to think by just placing music in a shared folder that you are breaking the law. The RIAA needs to actually show copying to another party!!!
CNet is letting the RIAA get off easy by letting them call that a violation when no illegal copying has actually been proven.
and future thieves. :-)
The RIAA & MPAA are groups that a determined to erase the "fair use" doctrine so any statements and especially legal briefs must be viewed in this light. If these two groups cannot get their way using the legislative process they will attempt it through case law.
Personally at best this has just given the RIAA a new idea and I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of crap wasn't next on their anti-customer and then whine because sales are dropping agenda. The RIAA and the MPAA are both big piles of poo!
Robert
If content providers would just learn that the old way of doing business no longer holds true we would be in a much more innovative society. I am sorry that they can no longer get away with charging exhuberant prices for media and content.
The RIAA and the MPAA have long tried to prosecute law abiding customers. And it is time for the federal court system to put them in there place.
They spent millions investigating Dick Nixon and hardly a penny looking into the multiple felonies committed by Clinton. They concentrated on trying to discredit the prosecutor involved instead, who later was completely exonerated in court of all of the lies that the Wash Post had been publishing about him.
The POINT here is the RIAA (known blood suckers) and whether the Wash Post should correct a story to pacify the greed-head musiclamo-fascists (to use right wing language you can understand). Correct the story and then write an in-depth story of everything the RIAA is doing to take away our rights.
Um, I think there may be a dispute as to which company holds this title - WP, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN. I would also dispute that they are unpaid.
:-) :-0
Maybe a shared folder labelled "limewire uploads special lawbreaking shared folder" and even then they would have to prove that any uploading took place.
other people. Note that I said "people" and not computers. If you
put MP3s on a media server or shared folder within your home
network, and those shared files are accessible through devices that
only you have access to, you are not breaking the law. It ultimately
comes down to the question of if another person can access your
MP3s. Now, if your wife accesses them... hmmm.... I'd like to see
what the RIAA has to say about that!
Shakespeare recommended hanging for lawyers, and I have to respect
the classics.
Although that's right after his admonition to "kill all the liars", so you
wouldn't actually need much rope, if you're only hanging the HONEST
lawyers.
Thirteen feet of rope should about do.
That sure sounds like merely having copies on his computer is an offense, apart from disseminating them over Kazaa.
More of the same: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs? copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs? Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant?s computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.) Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ?.mp3? format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the ?.mp3? extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife?s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a ?compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.?'
That makes it sound like the fact that the files were in mp3 format is somehow evidence of wrongdoing! (It also sounds like the attorney doesn't know much about mp3 ... it's used as much for personal storage as for sharing.)
So yes, the Post may have overstated things (backed up by the NY lawyer they quoted), but CNET is overstating the Post's "goof". The Post columnist should stop using distraction tactics and admit that the issue isn't as cut-and-dried, end-of-the-world as he made it out to be in his column.
Maybe the artists and RIAA will wake up and comprehend that the people they are attacking are the very people who are putting food on their tables.
Another observation: If I have visitors and I am playing music in my home - I am sharing the music. RIAA apparently does not understand that music is a social experience for many. I guess they want to cut off their noses to spite their face. Or maybe I best be quiet as they will come after me and listen outside my doors to make sure I am not playing music so my visitors can here music they did not purchase - only I purchased it.
Re: Shared folders. The item 'Shared folders' does not automatically imply P2P shared folders. Windows has shared folders, other applications use shared folders.
can complain to the RIAA instead of to him or to a flight attendant!
Cool!
your own home, you aren't violating copyright. Jukeboxes
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=search&case=/data2/circs/7th/934074.html) and
playing music in stores
(http://news.bookweb.org/features/3403.html) does require a
licensing fee to be paid though. Its all kind of screwed up to be
honest but the situation you outlined doesn't run afoul of any
copyright laws.
Marc Fisher is brave to go alone because this cancer is systemic within the IT industry. The same could be said for the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry etc.
Most modern professional software includes spyware which will connect to the Internet and a company server over a dozen times the moment you load it. It is clearly written in law that you can't just wire tap a citizen without approval from a public authority.. but for some reason people just accept it. Perhaps because the tech sector terminology is so abstracted so big-Industry can get away with anything.
Like the old saying: "DDT is good for me!!!"
If people aren't aware of the dangers, then they don't know to look for them. The hegemonic policies of these industries is incredible to behold, and I say it again; Marc Fisher is very brave to go alone against the Goliath.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
I am looking at the copyright law [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
] and I am not able to find anything refering too; "According to the copyright act you can make copies of cds, but not with an audiovisual device, which a computer is. So according to Title 17 of the US code, the copyright act, making copies of a cd on your computer is infringement."
Can anyone accual provide a proper reference to such verbage?
I have bought some music online but have had problems with the DRM after updating some hardware and got it fixed. I still buy DVD's and occasionally a CD. I like having the physical media but I don't like what the associations behind those media are doing in the name of their intellectual property, but as they have demonstrated for some years...they just don't care.
His answer was copyright law was complex and had to be decided on a case by case basis. This would be totally unacceptable. It seems that if 5 people do it, one or all may be prosecuted. He says no one has been prosecuted for this, it is generally acceptable. No one had been prosecuted for file sharing until the first one.
A year long boycott, no music downloaded at any price, or cd ?s or other media purchased for any price could correct this. But this boycott would require a 90 to 95 percent participation. This would be near impossible for even 6 months, or for that matter, 6 seconds. But if it were, RIAA lobbyists could convince Congress to write some clear copyright laws. And they probably would make sure the law would be acceptable to most people
- It's not clear enough?
- by pablo Dante January 3, 2008 10:58 PM PST
- To the Judge's question "Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an “unlawful copy” of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted material" lawyers answered (with other words) "Yes"
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (57 Comments)