Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Slashdotter unearths archived RIAA web page saying if you make copies from your own cd's "that's great"

This is a reprint of an older post, which I came across and thought I'd re-post. Thought it might be helpful to those of you litigating waiver and estoppel issues, or those of you planning to take the deposition of RIAA 'misspeaker' Jennifer Pariser of SONY BMG. - R.B.

An astute Slashdot member unearthed the following language from an archived RIAA web page:

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property


Anonymous said...

But Ray, of course that was only "great" as long as we weren't forced by powerful musicretailers such as apple, amazon and co. to acknowledge that non-TPM-DRMed mp3 files are actually something that consumers are willing to pay money for.
Now in 2008 we finaly hop on the train that is running for over 7 years and we want our cut of course!!

It isn't great anymore that people now format shift their own CDs while we want to sell them their music now again in that new digital format mp3.

And excuse us, it isn't our fault that the internet never forgets what was once our argumentation.
(Naybe we need to sue for infringing on our words with that archived copy)

And this missspeaking Pariser, come on cut us some slack here (you did it to Alter_Fritz too, Ray!)

BTW Ray, do you know what this FLAC thingy is? Our unlicensed investigators tell us that the train we are hopping on now has changed in that direction for quite some time among musiclovers with better bandwithlines.
We probably need another 7 years to figure that thingy out how to monitize it. I guess "RIAA-Richard" needs to extort and sue some more people for us until then.

At least those pirating students can't use the defense that we don't offer what they stole for sale. We are losing billions while they don't buy our mp3's

Anonymous said...

...and the poster, IIRC, also noted that the RIAA deleted this page--all while Cary Sherman claims not to be against CD ripping (at the same time declining to declare that CD ripping is legal).

The RIAA are a slippery bunch but they seem to have the media hoodwinked. Even CNET declared the Sherman v. Fisher NPR piece to be a "shredding" of Fisher--in spite of the fact that Sherman never declared ripping to be legal. Fisher's point still stands, Sherman merely managed to successfully obfuscate the issue.

James said...

You see, this page "misspoke" when it said "It's your music."

The RIAA really didn't mean it that way. They meant to say "It's our music, but since you paid us money we'll let you make a copy of it for your personal use. Then we'll 'misspeak' under oath in front of the jury in a federal court that it isn't and that it's just a nice way of saying 'stealing.'"

Nohwhere Man said...

Seems to me that someone should have a notary print a copy of the web page and stamp/sign it. That would protect the evidence if the RIAA were to have the Wayback Machine remove that page.

Anonymous said...

Virtualchoirboy said...

Actually, James, wouldn't mis-speaking under oath in front of a jury in Federal Court be a nice way of saying..... PERJURY?

I'm likely wrong because I think perjury needs intent as well as falsehood, but it would certainly be fun to see them brought up on charges... :-)

Anonymous said...

Why go through the trouble of searching through the archives. The message is still present in their current FAQ:

"How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?

Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally."

It's been there for awhile too.

Jadeic said...

It seems that I am no the only one routinely downloading the whole of the RIAA site to pdf.

James said...

"Actually, James, wouldn't mis-speaking under oath in front of a jury in Federal Court be a nice way of saying..... PERJURY?" -Mike

No-no-no. That's not it at all. You see, they are trying to protect their corporate heads' fat salaries (heretofore misspoken as "artists" or "musicians") and trivial things like the truth just aren't in the picture. Perjury? Are you even hinting that RIAA Rich and the gang go to prison for fudging a bit? Come on, it's just a little white lie. You certainly told your teacher the dog ate your homework before when you were a kid, right?

It's certain that you don't have any concern for the fatcats...I mean the artists. Yeah. That's what I meant.

Because of people like you, Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s kids are eating store-brand peanut butter straight out of the jar with a plastic spork now, and the family has had to downgrade from cable internet back to dial-up. As a result, the kids need all day to illegally download an album.

How do you sleep at night?!

James said...

"I'm likely wrong because I think perjury needs intent as well as falsehood, but it would certainly be fun to see them brought up on charges... :-)" -Mike

Except that there was intent.

Cary Sherman conveniently brushed aside the "misspeak" as coming from Sony's in-house counsel, but in the Thomas transcripts, RIAA Rich is asking Ms. Thomas in the cross-examination whether she made copies of CDs on her computer for herself or to give to friends. That was "or," not "and." He deliberately misrepresented the "position of the industry" as Sherman put it, to ensure a winning verdict for Big Mu$ic. Sherman never said RIAA Rich "misspoke" but he basically echoed Ms. Pariser

There was intent and falsehood. It is perjury.

Alter_Fritz said...

"There was intent and falsehood. It is perjury."

while i haven't seen/read the official transcript yet, let me be the devils advocat:
We surely demonstrated that "the Pariser" has a serious hearing deficit with the demonstration of the comparison between an mp3 sound and a wav file where she claimed that they are as good as each other. So what Cary said about she understood the question wrong is plausible -- Really!1one1eleven11!!

Anonymous said...

Say, regardless of whether the false testimony rises to the level of perjury, a lawyer isn't legally allowed to present knowingly false or perjurious testimony. Isn't the RIAA's lawyer culpable in this instance, since the testimony they intended to give was no doubt well rehearsed and he knew what it was supposed to be?

Reluctant Raconteur said...

Although I think that her misstatements should be reviewed by the judge to see if they were fatally prejudicial to the case. I doubt that she will get sanctioned, must less charged with perjury.

The bar is set very high for any actions against a witness and this does not qualify IMHO.

the best that can come from this is a mistrial.

I fully expect nothing to happen.

Anonymous said...

I knew this was on there, I was wondering when it would come back. I couldn't find it on the wayback machine when I looked. great news.


Anonymous said...

Making copies from your own bought cd's is a whole lot different than downloading "free" music from Kazaa. I don't see what this has to do with the issue. And I'm not on their side!!!


raybeckerman said...

Anonymous RJ, I guess you're not aware that at the Capitol v. Thomas trial Jennifer Pariser of SONY BMG swore under oath to the jury that if Ms. Thomas copied her CD's onto her computer that was "stealing", or that the RIAA lawyers implied as much in their supplemental brief in Atlantic v. Howell.

Anonymous said...

Are they selling me "music" or a "license" to privately listen to music with maybe my friends and/or family?

If I own the music itself, then I should be able to do as I wish with it under the Doctrine of First Sale. One argument in favor of this is that I can give away as a gift, or sell my used music media to a secondhand music store, if I don't wish to possess it any longer. I may also throw it out entirely, being under no obligation to either return, or notify, the record company of my intent to no longer utilize their product.

If they're selling me a license then I should be able to listen to that licensed music anywhere on any device the reproduces the information in audible form subject to the restrictions on public performances. One argument against this is that no license terms are displayed on the recording medium or package, questioning whether or not there are any restrictions at all. Only a copyright notice appears, and I'm sure that copyright by itself doesn't specify which rights you do or don't have for a given single or album as compared to someone else who also has that same album along with a separate license for public performances. Any such license agreement between the music company and the purchaser might even be deemed illegal or unenforceable if it actually existed, but if it does it's well hidden, which is also a violation of the law to not fully disclose the terms of the license just purchased.

It seems to this observer that neither the music, nor a license to the music, is actually being sold. The only other choice possible is that a very restrictive license is somehow implied (but not spelled out) that you can only listen to music in private when reproduced directly from the medium that you purchased, and if that medium is lost, stolen, damaged, or worn out, so is your right to listen to that music. If so, that's unlike just about any other license in existence.

Recently a court overturned the "Not For Resale" provisions printed on promotional recordings. Consumer recordings as a rule don't even contain that much license information.

As I see it, you don't even know what you're buying when you buy music, and that the recording industry lawyers will argue different things at different times as it best suits them to extract more money from you. It's actually possible that the record companies have no say at all with what you do with music you've purchased beyond what the copyright act restricts. If so, woe to them.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Alter_Fritz said...

And in yet another case, EMI vs. mp3tunes, "Evil4" are in principle stating the same since they claim that you are not allowed to store your own fair use format shifted music from your own CD's on a remote storage! (*)

But I guess, given the recend remote digital VCR decision by second cirquit, that one should look securely in the green range too .

The district level judge there already showed resonable overview over the law and denied one outrageous demand by EMI so far (**)

(*) RIAA and EMI - All Your Music Are Belong To Us

(**) Court Ruling Denies EMI Access to Millions of Personal MP3 Files