CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Sony says, "You rip your own CDs? You're stealing, pal."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony says, "You rip your own CDs? You're stealing, pal."

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Sony plays by it's own rules, muthfuckas:

Quote:
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.

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.
post #2 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
Lord forbid this is how we define theft. Anyone with a CD and a CPU is fucked.
post #3 of 36
Way to go to tear the consumer a new one.
These guys must be really desperate to issue statements like this. Because that criminalizes about....everyone?
post #4 of 36
Their definition of theft and mine don't match. Sorry, Sony. Whenever I buy a CD the first thing I do is rip it. And I still buy physical CDs. Don't ask me why, the music industry obviously hates my ass, but I do.

Downloading illegally is theft, no two ways about it. I can understand that moral argument. But there is no moral argument for this. I legitimately paid for this music, I didn't share it with anyone but myself, and I'm going to enjoy the music I paid for any damn way I please. If someone accidentally hears a song I play in passing, well, those people are obviously fucking thieves.

In short, don't walk past my desk at work, you scum. I know what you're doing. You're enjoying my music by proxy!
post #5 of 36
I look forward to the day where merely mentioning you like a band is some sort of copyright infringement- against the band's record label, not the band itself.
post #6 of 36
They're shooting for the moon. There's not a chance in hell that ripping a CD you've legally bought to your own iPod can or would be classified as theft.

I wonder if Sony has seen the numerous studies indicating that file sharing, both legal and ill, has actually contributed to earnings within the record industry?

If not, I'm certain that Apple's lawyers would be happy to provide them with copies they've ripped off their computers - though Sony will have to pay for each one they recieve, lest they be guilty of 'stealing' intellectual property.
post #7 of 36
Talking about copyright infringement is copyright infringement, you know. They'll be coming for you shortly.

I'm having a hard time understanding why I should feel bad for the record companies when they continue to be so inflexible and make asinine arguments like this. They can punish as many college students as they'd like, it's not going to reverse the paradigm shift in recorded music. I think that Radiohead is an excellent example of a band that is actively figuring out how to work in this new context and I'll bet they're going to make money hand over fist for their efforts. Meanwhile, the record companies undoubtedly will continue to cling to their old business models and fade into obsolescence.
post #8 of 36
Wouldn't it be even dumber of sony to make this statement if one of their product lines were MP3 player... oh wait, well at least they didn't use the ability to rip songs onto the PS3 and have them play in game as a selling point... No, darn it.
post #9 of 36
The plus side? Untenable positions like this don't hold up well at all in court. Whether these statements are relevant to the case at hand, I don't know. But, when a case arises where they are relevant, this sort of garbage isn't going to help the labels' cases.
post #10 of 36
It's just the flailing of a dying beast. Record companies are on the road to obsolescence. Here's a sign on that path.

Quote:
Radiohead Says: Pay What You Want
Monday, Oct. 01, 2007 By JOSH TYRANGIEL

Roughly 12,000 albums are released in an average year, so the announcement late Sunday night that the new Radiohead record, In Rainbows, will be out Oct. 10 is not itself big news. Sure, Radiohead is on a sustained run as the most interesting and innovative band in rock, but what makes In Rainbows important — easily the most important release in the recent history of the music business — are its record label and its retail price: there is none, and there is none.

In Rainbows will be released as a digital download available only via the band's web site, Radiohead.com. There's no label or distribution partner to cut into the band's profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows' 15 songs into the online checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt "It's Up To You" appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words "It's Really Up To You" — and really, it is. It's the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it's perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.

Radiohead's contract with EMI/Capitol expired after its last record, Hail to the Thief, was released in 2003; shortly before the band started writing new songs, singer Thom Yorke told TIME, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'F___ you' to this decaying business model." On Sunday night, guitarist Jonny Greenwood took to Radiohead's Dead Air Space blog and nonchalantly announced, "Hello everyone. Well, the new album is finished, and it's coming out in 10 days. We've called it In Rainbows. Love from us all."

While many industry observers speculated that Radiohead might go off-label for its seventh album, it was presumed the band would at least rely on Apple's iTunes or United Kingdom-based online music store 7digital for distribution. Few suspected the band members had the ambition (or the server capacity) to put an album out on their own. The final decision was apparently made just a few weeks ago, and, when informed of the news on Sunday, several record executives admitted that, despite the rumors, they were stunned. "This feels like yet another death knell," emailed an A&R executive at a major European label. "If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business."

Labels can still be influential and profitable by focusing on younger acts that need their muscle to get radio play and placement in record stores — but only if the music itself remains a saleable commodity. "That's the interesting part of all this," says a producer who works primarily with American rap artists. "Radiohead is the best band in the world; if you can pay whatever you want for music by the best band in the world, why would you pay $13 dollars or $.99 cents for music by somebody less talented? Once you open that door and start giving music away legally, I'm not sure there's any going back."

The ramifications of Radiohead's pay-what-you-want experiment will take time to sort out, but for established artists at least, turning what was once their highest-value asset — a much-buzzed-about new album — into a loss leader may be the wave of the future. Even under the most lucrative record deals, the ones reserved for repeat, multi-platinum superstars, the artists can end up with less than 30% of overall sales revenue (which often is then split among several band members). Meanwhile, as record sales decline, the concert business is booming. In July, Prince gave away his album Planet Earth for free in the U.K. through the downmarket Mail on Sunday newspaper. At first he was ridiculed. Then he announced 21 consecutive London concert dates — and sold out every one of them.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
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.
This is beyond stupid. Then why is it our problem? Go after software companies that facilitate the easy ripping of cd's. Shit man, didn't even Sony's minidisc player facilitate making tons and tons of copies of music? I can't believe behemoth labels have lasted this long, being so incredibly out of touch with the consumer.
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey
Talking about copyright infringement is copyright infringement, you know. They'll be coming for you shortly.

I'm having a hard time understanding why I should feel bad for the record companies when they continue to be so inflexible and make asinine arguments like this. They can punish as many college students as they'd like, it's not going to reverse the paradigm shift in recorded music. I think that Radiohead is an excellent example of a band that is actively figuring out how to work in this new context and I'll bet they're going to make money hand over fist for their efforts. Meanwhile, the record companies undoubtedly will continue to cling to their old business models and fade into obsolescence.
I'm very interested to see how Radiohead's "Pay what you feel like paying" policy works for 'In Rainbows'.

S. King tried something similar with 'the Plant' a few years ago and got hosed. King and Radiohead have almost-diametrically-opposed fanbases, and the notion of paying for entertainment online has gained traction since then, so the performance of his book has little precedential value. However, I do think that on the whole, we've seen that people (when presented with an 'honor system' of sorts) tend to demand their online acquisitions be cheap/free.

It's less a paradigm shift in recorded music, I'd offer, than it is a shift in how we choose to consume music - we want it cheap, easy, and transferrable. That's a recipe for copyright degradation if ever there was one. While I don't agree with Sony's tactics or stance, they do have an obligation to defend their property.

What they appear to be doing is throwing their net immensely wide, with the expectation that the net will shrink to something approaching rational size.

You want to get all your arguments and possible arguments in to the court at the start - whether those arguments will all hold up to scrutiny is less of a concern at this point.
post #13 of 36
This is indeed a head scratcher. It's almost sad to see the record labels flailing in the wind, too stubborn to just adapt to technology and the times and make the money that is out there. Baldwin in "Glengarry" comes to mind, "They're practically giving you their money!"

CDs are a thing of the past. Like Alan, if I actually buy one instead of doing iTunes, I immediately rip it to the computer, and the disc gets flung onto a shelf, usually never to be opened again. Find me someone under 45 walking around with a portable CD player. They don't exist.

If they moved to an all-download system, like iTunes, then they'd sell more and go a whole lot further towards cutting back piracy. I'm savvier than your average American on the computer, and I wouldn't have clue one about how to about breaking the DRM on iTunes downloads.
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer
What they appear to be doing is throwing their net immensely wide, with the expectation that the net will shrink to something approaching rational size.

You want to get all your arguments and possible arguments in to the court at the start - whether those arguments will all hold up to scrutiny is less of a concern at this point.
Ok, theoretically yes. But, this doesn't even pass the straight-face test. Moreover, this isn't the briefing or anything. This is the trial. To put her on the stand and advance this means they think it's a strong argument...strong enough to be used during the very limited time available to present their case.
post #15 of 36
Sony just keep shooting itself in the foot, from the Blu-Ray to the PS3 to their aggressive stance on this.
post #16 of 36
I wonder what Sony's consumer electronics and computer hardware divisions have to say about this.
post #17 of 36
I guess I have to stop saving up for that Hard Drive media system for my home theatre/music room. Hate to be seen as stealing just because I want quick, efficient accessibility to my media files plus the added bonus of playing them all over my house.
post #18 of 36
Ah, Sony. How far the mighty have fallen. I remember when their name carried mostly positive associations. So much so that their slogan was "It's a Sony". That slogan sounds more like a threat these days.

Don't buy music from RIAA affiliates. Steal it from the internet like they assume you do already. Spend your money on independent artists and labels. And by all means, support Radiohead in this noble experiment.

http://www.riaaradar.com/ is a good tool to help you avoid RIAA-affiliated recordings.
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Ok, theoretically yes. But, this doesn't even pass the straight-face test. Moreover, this isn't the briefing or anything. This is the trial. To put her on the stand and advance this means they think it's a strong argument...strong enough to be used during the very limited time available to present their case.
I agree - see my above posts. They're shooting for the moon here, and it's ridiculous.

Have the lawyers for Sony advanced this argument, generally? If so, she's backing up that argument with her testimony is she not?

Inane and unenforceable as their position might be, I've read about, and seen, much worse when it comes to the attempted bolstering of untenable positions.

I'm fairly certain you have as well.
post #20 of 36
Sorry, when i read your post initially I interpreted it as "yeah, it's not a great argument, but it's good representation". Hope I didn't come off as snarky or anything.
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Sorry, when i read your post initially I interpreted it as "yeah, it's not a great argument, but it's good representation". Hope I didn't come off as snarky or anything.
You came off as a lawyer. Nice to see someone else around here living the legal life in one form or another.

You were absolutely right in what you said, but I wasn't defending them or their representation in the slightest. Just attempting to make some sense of it.
post #22 of 36
it's not legal for me to photocopy an entire book and give it to my students. But I can photocopy part of it and distribute it without violating the copyright laws.

And yet, as long as I don't give it out to a bunch of people I could photocopy an entire book. Maybe I need to enlarge the font. Or if it's an old book that I don't want to handle, I can scan it. Or I can photocopy a few chapters to read on the train. If that's not violating the copyright, then neither is ripping a CD to listen to on your own computer/player. (Of course, i'm suggesting the laws for music and printed material be considered the same when, in fact, the consumption is much different).
Just a thought...
post #23 of 36
Don't the record companies get a percentage from sales of blank media, like they used to with audio cassettes? What the hell do they think people are doing with those blank discs, playing TRON?

I also read somewhere that the federal copyright law has specific language allowing a user to copy purchased music to a hard drive as long as it's not for distribution, so I don't see how Sony has a leg to stand on here.
post #24 of 36
It's surprising to hear Sony basically buck the trend and go even more draconian wrt fair use. When basically the trend is to move towards DRM-free content, Sony seems to be saying they intend to continue pushing newer forms of DRM onto the public. Never mind that its already bitten them in the ass with consumers once before a while back.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurgee
it's not legal for me to photocopy an entire book and give it to my students. But I can photocopy part of it and distribute it without violating the copyright laws.

And yet, as long as I don't give it out to a bunch of people I could photocopy an entire book. Maybe I need to enlarge the font. Or if it's an old book that I don't want to handle, I can scan it. Or I can photocopy a few chapters to read on the train. If that's not violating the copyright, then neither is ripping a CD to listen to on your own computer/player. (Of course, i'm suggesting the laws for music and printed material be considered the same when, in fact, the consumption is much different).
Just a thought...
What about audio books? Who gets the "say-so" on them? I'm sure sony will say they do.
post #26 of 36
What they really want to do is charge you every time you play that song. They want to nickel and dime the consumer.

And what's this bullshit about looking out for the artists and saying they don't make any money. It's probably because they squander away all the winnings from their stud horses.

More musicians should make their own records. It's become exceedingly easy to release your own album. Sure you won't get a huge marketing campaign but you can still get your music out there and make money.
post #27 of 36
This is simply ridiculous. People have been using recordable media for free for decades now. You can't turn back the clock.
post #28 of 36
And these idiots at Sony and pals, wonder why people on a whole hate the record industry.
post #29 of 36
I think Sony's/Pariser's definition of "stealing" is ridiculous. But then again, I'm a lifelong thief. And it all started the first time I set the needle on the vinyl and recorded that album onto an audio cassette. So I could listen to it in my car, instead of re-purchasing that copy of Thriller on a pre-recorded cassette. And I've been taking money out of the pocket of record industry executives ever since...
post #30 of 36
Sony says a lot of stupid things.
post #31 of 36
It would be easy for established acts like Prince and Radiohead to release an album on their own and see the positive benefits. It's the new acts that need the muscle of the recording lables to get air play on the radio / videos played on MTV. Does MTV actually show videos any more?

Until there is a major shift in the way terrestrial radio is handled the recording industry will still have the power. Things are changing and will continue to change.
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay f
It would be easy for established acts like Prince and Radiohead to release an album on their own and see the positive benefits. It's the new acts that need the muscle of the recording lables to get air play on the radio / videos played on MTV. Does MTV actually show videos any more?

Until there is a major shift in the way terrestrial radio is handled the recording industry will still have the power. Things are changing and will continue to change.
An act that has a successful local support could put a single or two on iTunes or an equivalent, then use so-called viral marketing and/or traditional word of mouth to make it bigger and bigger. Local acts already make it onto radio, and as opening acts for bigger stars touring their area. It will just take the middle man of the record label out of the equation and make each band work for their own piece of the pie. Although I will be interested to see what happens in terms of competition for songs (for artists who don't write all their own stuff), producers, etc. that go along with recording.
post #33 of 36
Hey Sony, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
post #34 of 36
The stubbornness of the music industry is awe-inspiring. Are they so arrogant as to believe that outright lies will be taken as truth if they come from them?

And you know what's funny? By calling their legitimate customers thieves they are providing the real thieves with moral justification to not only continue ripping them of but also to be proud of it. The sooner these fucking scammers go out of business the better for everyone.
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belethedheliel
An act that has a successful local support could put a single or two on iTunes or an equivalent, then use so-called viral marketing and/or traditional word of mouth to make it bigger and bigger. Local acts already make it onto radio, and as opening acts for bigger stars touring their area. It will just take the middle man of the record label out of the equation and make each band work for their own piece of the pie. Although I will be interested to see what happens in terms of competition for songs (for artists who don't write all their own stuff), producers, etc. that go along with recording.
I think if we see things go along this path, then the artist's management will start to be the biggest deal. Musicians/artists are usually the *worst* people to be working for a piece of the pie. Their talents lie in the creation of the art/product. If they could work the business and technical end they'd likely not be going through all the crap it takes to be an artist. But a smart manager that can build up a decent team and have the band buy into the plan? THAT'S the guy that'd be the subject of a bidding war. Especially after a successful run or two under his belt.

Quote:
The stubbornness of the music industry is awe-inspiring. Are they so arrogant as to believe that outright lies will be taken as truth if they come from them?
As far as I can tell, it's been the same way since the post-war years. Labels never paid the artists what they were worth. R&B artists in the fifties were legendary for rarely seeing dime one. They'd have a big hit, expect a big check, not get one, go into the label and complain/threaten/pull a knife on the sucka and have the label head smile and buy them a new Cadillac. Something that cost, oh, three grand. When they were due a $10,000 check. My fave story was one where the artist walked in on the label guy while he was meeting with someone. Threatened him if he didn't get paid. Label guy gets up and puts his arm around the artist's shoulder, takes him to a window and points to a beautiful new Cadillac. That's yours, boy. Artist forgets about knifing the sucka and goes to show off his new Caddy. The guy the label head was meeting with laughs and asks how much the car cost. Label guy says "What cost? It's a rental."

Artists have *never* gotten a break unless their lawyer was better than the label's.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Don't the record companies get a percentage from sales of blank media, like they used to with audio cassettes? What the hell do they think people are doing with those blank discs, playing TRON?
I don't know about you, but I use them to terminate humans, so I can harvest the endorphins from their brains to synthesize an interstellar drug.

Oh shit, here comes Dolph Lundgren.

You didn't see me...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Sony says, "You rip your own CDs? You're stealing, pal."