Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media

Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing 767

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-big-shock-here dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:20AM (#20835919)
    I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
  • Suppositions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:21AM (#20835935) Homepage Journal

    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.
    When an individual makes a statement like that, I suppose we can say that person is completely out of their moldy gourd.
    • by Vorghagen (1154761) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:25AM (#20835981)
      Now they're just trying to look like asshats. Before this we could almost give them the benefit of the doubt, but now...... nope.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by networkBoy (774728)
        No kidding.
        When I read this all I could think was WTF? Actually I only got as far as W? and I felt neurons popping off like so many kernels of corn in my head. Isn't this considered fair use? I remember not long ago a certain in-duh-vidual in the head of the RIAA saying that this was a non-issue, that making a single copy for a friend was even a non-issue, and that the issue was file sharing. All of a sudden that asshat looks reasonable!
        -nB
        • Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Gr8Apes (679165) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:06AM (#20836593)
          I think that's the purpose of releases like this, to make the previous unreasonable statements look like acceptable alternatives.

          We should actually draw the line in the sand and tell the entire RIAA to get bent.
          • Re:Suppositions (Score:4, Interesting)

            by griffjon (14945) <{GriffJon} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @04:03PM (#20842497) Homepage Journal
            ...and tell the entire RIAA to get bent.

            OK, I'm tired of this line. If you don't like RIAA's tactics, don't buy CDs from their record labels. It's easy. I've been using RIAARadar to not support RIAA labels since Napster went dark; and it's not like you miss much good music.

            what I'm saying is that it's BEEN time to let the RIAA twist in the wind, and I really, really hope I'm preaching to the choir. Being a /. reader and continuing to buy RIAA-tainted CDs is basically inexcusable.
            • Re:Suppositions (Score:4, Interesting)

              by sowth (748135) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:59PM (#20846415) Journal

              I'm tired of that line. It doesn't matter if everyone stops buying music from RIAA companies. They'll still get all the royalties from radio, store music, and other places where compulsary license fees are collected. It is the law. They'll also amp up their lawsuits, DMCA complaint bots, and lobbying stating "piracy" is the cause of their decreased sales.

              It doesn't matter if you don't broadcast or listen to their music, a false DMCA complaint will still take your site down. You will still have to hire a lawyer if they try to sue you because you wrote a communications app which may be able to transport music or generic files, some of which could be music. You will still be screwed if they pass a DRM law which requires all computers to run (Microsoft's) DRM system and you are not allowed to write software unless you buy some expensive key--assuming they will let you buy it at all. After all, if you are an open source coder, you must be "untrustworthy"

              Even boycotting them, they still get money and they still continue with their insane behavior. That is not the end all solution.

      • Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dintech (998802) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @11:15AM (#20837635)
        Aren't these people supposed to go through their PR department before they're let loose on the public with their wild rantings?
        • Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Informative)

          by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:02PM (#20839487) Journal
          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 [arstechnica.com]

          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
      • by Lord Apathy (584315) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @11:31AM (#20837953)

        Now they're just trying to look like asshats

        I really don't think they are trying any more. I think we can say they have mastered that just fine. Lets see, I have canned response to sony. I wrote it down on an index card, just a second let me get it. Okay here it is..

        ..."Fuck You!"...

    • Contact details (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:27AM (#20836009)
      Tell Jennifer what you think of her - (212) 833-7362

      http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1 [findlaw.com]
    • Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Stonent1 (594886) <stonent AT stone ... intclark DOT net> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:29AM (#20836039) Journal
      So that means the people who bought Sony MD Walkmans in the early 90's before file sharing was common place were supposed to buy a separate set of CDs for it? Did it say that anywhere on the box? No!
      • Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:49AM (#20836321) Homepage
        Actually, the Sony software actually facilitates the copying of the CD to the Minidisc. Buying a second CD and copying those tracks would not suffice, because you're just copying CD number 2, which is still stealing, according to them. According to this statement, the only music you should be able to play actual pre-recorded minidiscs, which I don't even think are sold anymore. They even still sell Minidisc players [sonystyle.ca], which from what I can tell, don't even support any DRM'd media formats, and can pretty much only play music which has been ripped from CD, or re-encoded from non-protected formats.
        • Not news. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:04AM (#20836545) Journal
          Remember, there is a difference between Sony's hardware division that makes stuff that plays music, and Sony's music division that signs artists, and distributes music.

          The hardware people are reasonable, they want their stuff to be able to play everything, and record everything, and they want it to work 100% of the time.

          The music people just want you to buy their stuff over and over and over. They don't care if you EVER listen to it.

          It's a big corporation, and all the parts aren't always working in the same direction, so don't throw down on the people who make stereo equipment, and the DVD-W's you're using to flawlessly copy movies, just because the music people are douchebags.

          • Re:Not news. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by cez (539085) * <{moc.yadretseygn ... sih} {ta} {ofni}> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:20AM (#20836821) Homepage

            It's a big corporation, and all the parts aren't always working in the same direction, so don't throw down on the people who make stereo equipment, and the DVD-W's you're using to flawlessly copy movies, just because the music people are douchebags
            Umm... no thats the exact reason to "throw down" on those people who make stereo equipment with contradiction to what the douchbags at Sony BMG say. These asshats need to be leashed in and one way is totally holding the rest of the corporation accountable. When they don't have their head up their asses, they reply to one thing, and one thing only: money.


            Speak with your wallets and speak to the shareholders; across the board.


            Sony execs should be self-policing their other divisions, period.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by king-manic (409855)
              Umm... no thats the exact reason to "throw down" on those people who make stereo equipment with contradiction to what the douchbags at Sony BMG say. These asshats need to be leashed in and one way is totally holding the rest of the corporation accountable. When they don't have their head up their asses, they reply to one thing, and one thing only: money.

              From most indications the Various music labels are fighting above their weight class as they seem to have more influence then industries that make much much
          • Re:Not news. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by pipatron (966506) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:24AM (#20836873) Homepage

            The hardware people are reasonable, they want their stuff to be able to play everything, and record everything, and they want it to work 100% of the time.

            Ahh.. so that's why they always invent their own formats for cassettes, memory sticks, interconnectors, etc... Or wait, no, I'm confused now.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by kidgenius (704962)
            Here's a great example of this too:

            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.
          • Re:Not news. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:54AM (#20837315) Homepage Journal

            Remember, there is a difference between Sony's hardware division that makes stuff that plays music, and Sony's music division that signs artists, and distributes music.

            I'm not up on all this stuff, so could you tell me which Sony company [yahoo.com] makes money off hardware and which is the entertainment company, so that I can refuse to do business with the idiot corporation but still support the slightly less idiotic one? Because if you can't, in my opinion, that's exactly like giving me money to put in the checking account I share with my wife, but not liking her and refusing to give any money to her. It all ends up in the same place and will be distributed among the same people.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nine-times (778537)

            Remember, there is a difference between Sony's hardware division that makes stuff that plays music, and Sony's music division that signs artists, and distributes music.

            I think people do remember that. They just like to point out how hypocritical it is to have one company where one division tries to make money by complaining about people copying music, while the other division tries to make money selling hardware that makes it easy to copy music.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 2short (466733)
      True. But when a lawyer makes a statement like that under oath, I suppose we can say it is grounds for disbarment. She's committing perjury, unless she wants to claim she was just giving her opinion in ignorance of the actual law. But what's she going to say? "Whoops, as head of litigation for a major record label, I wasn't aware of the basic fundamentals of copyright law."
  • by lightblade (938965) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:22AM (#20835943)
    ...when they were making mix tapes back in the 80's? If copying is copying then I don't see the difference...
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:30AM (#20836061) Homepage Journal
      According to the new rules of the corporate culture, we are stealing every time we expect some product or services for our money. We're stealing when we expect to use an iPhone the way we want to use it. We're stealing when we assume "unlimited" bandwidth means "unlimited" bandwidth. We're stealing when we borrow a book from the library or from friend. We're stealing when we pay for health insurance and then actually use it. We're stealing when we expect the government to do something useful with our tax money like provide health care to children instead of providing security services to oil companies in Iraq.

      We're supposed to shut up and pay.
      • by realdodgeman (1113225) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:02AM (#20836525) Homepage

        According to the new rules of the corporate culture, we are stealing every time we expect some product or services for our money. We're stealing when we expect to use an iPhone the way we want to use it. We're stealing when we assume "unlimited" bandwidth means "unlimited" bandwidth. We're stealing when we borrow a book from the library or from friend. We're stealing when we pay for health insurance and then actually use it. We're stealing when we expect the government to do something useful with our tax money like provide health care to children instead of providing security services to oil companies in Iraq.

        We're supposed to shut up and pay.

        And the surprise is?

        This is what happens when companies are allowed to make the laws. Most corporations have one goal: Make more money. The higher price and more times you pay for the same product, the better. Capitalism can be good, competition is the best, but it needs to be regulated, as has been proven time and time again.

        When all the major record companies "agreed" on using lots of cash on DRM and MAFIAA, they knew that they were going to screw their customers. But they also knew that people wouldn't stop buying music. But this is where they stepped wrong. RIAA can't stop piracy, and DRM can't either.

        Now they are making more and more desperate statements (like the example in this article), to try to compensate. Fortunately it won't help, and they will at last be forced to listen to their customers. DRM-free music is getting more popular every day, and the music industry will soon realize that they have to follow that example.

        Let this be a warning for all corporations, that eventually they will get burned if they screw with their customers.
      • by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:27AM (#20836921) Homepage Journal
        But,
        What about the people that do get hurt by piracy? What about the people that make money from it?
        No I am not talking about MP3 player manufactures or CDRW producers. There was a story on Slashdot about a site that was full of pirated eBooks. There received a take down notice that caused a lot of problems because.
        1. It invoked the DMCA for no valid reason.
        2. It included one work that was published under Creative Commons.
        The up roar over those errors what loud and I feel justified. However no one pointed out that the site did have many ebooks that did violate the authors copyright. Also that site was in the process of raising venture capital and was selling ads. That site is in it for the money just like the publishers.
        So we have several groups.

        We have the media companies. They are big and vile. They want total control over all media and don't really care about the consumer or the artists rights.

        We have the pirates. I will restrict this to the those that are into it for the profit. They are acting like fences. They don't actually break any
        copyrights they just help those that do connect up with the people that want the material and make a profit doing it. Oh they will often wrap themselves with the freedom banner but the truth is they are in it for the money.

        We have the artists and the authors. They are getting ripped off by both the media companies and the pirates.

        You have the hackers and users. They want to use the media they buy any way they want to. It should be completely legal for iTunes or any other software to rip DVDs so people can play them on their computers and media players! Bit Torrent isn't a pirates tool anymore than a sheet of paper is a counterfeiters tool.

        As the end user of media we are not hurt by the pirates but we are hurt by DRM and are offended by the erosion of our rights by the media companies. We tend to side with anyone that is against the media companies. But the truth is people do deserve to be paid for their work. It is just as wrong to violate the copyright on a book as it is to violate the GPL. Authors and Artists have the right to be paid for their work. Just as we have the right for fair use. And the DMCA, DRM, RIAA, and MPAA are NOT THE SOLUTION they are if anything a huge part of the problem. DRM makes pirated media easier to deal with than legal media.

        If course I wonder when the video companies will realize that bit torent is a small leak in their dike, the flood is NetFlix.
    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:41AM (#20836215)
      I think the RIAA would be perfectly consistent and argue that people were stealing in the 80's when they made mix tapes. Keep in mind that in those days that few people were on the internet. CD-R didn't exist. The only way consumers could copy music was to do so via low quality cassette tapes. The RIAA wasn't happy about home taping from day one and fought a losing battle against it, but since practical concerns (time involved in duplication, generational quality loss, and cost of media) made it impractical for people to engage in large scale duplication of music at home, they just turned a blind eye to the idea that a few people would share music with their friends via cassette tapes. However, choosing not to prosecute some guy for making one or two tapes for friends doesn't mean that they ever agreed that the practice was legal. It just would cost more to prosecute than it was worth.
      • by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @11:10AM (#20837557)
        I think the RIAA would be perfectly consistent and argue that people were stealing in the 80's when they made mix tapes. Keep in mind that in those days that few people were on the internet. CD-R didn't exist. The only way consumers could copy music was to do so via low quality cassette tapes. The RIAA wasn't happy about home taping from day one and fought a losing battle against it, but since practical concerns (time involved in duplication, generational quality loss, and cost of media) made it impractical for people to engage in large scale duplication of music at home, they just turned a blind eye to the idea that a few people would share music with their friends via cassette tapes. However, choosing not to prosecute some guy for making one or two tapes for friends doesn't mean that they ever agreed that the practice was legal. It just would cost more to prosecute than it was worth.

        Of course they sued the cassette recorder manufacturers, lost, and set a president that copying is fair use. They've been fighting to prove that distributing over the internet is legally different (which is likely is). So while putting songs on kazzaa might be illegal ripping CD's has already been set as fair use. So her statement ignores history. It's inconsistent with the legal history that exists. She might want to go and buy off American politicians but you need to make sure that doesn't happen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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

  • by jayhawk88 (160512) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:23AM (#20835951)
    Clearly all the major record labels got together about 15 years ago and decided that they had already made entirely too much money, and wagered amongst themselves to see who could do the most to kill the music industry. It's been a fun ride guys, but you're just getting too blatant now, we're onto your little game.
  • In that case... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Corporate Troll (537873) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:23AM (#20835953) Homepage Journal
    .... I didn't even bought a license as you claimed before. I bought nothing at all. So what exactly did I buy from you?
  • Next Step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:23AM (#20835959)
    "We market CDs to allow the customer to sample the music. Every additional time the customer listens to the CD translates to lost sales for us. We will make sure that legislation exists to charge the customer to prevent people from stealing and unfairly gaining from our copyrights."

    Yours sincerely,
    RIAA.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by boyfaceddog (788041)
      And after that...
      Dear sir or madam;

      We respectfully request that you cease and desist from listening to our music. The license you purchased from us only allows you to listen to each song once. This was clearly printed on the wrapper included with CD or in the EULA you agreed to before you downloaded the song.

      We are presenting you with this opportunity to comply with the law (see statute on next twenty three pages). If you fail to comply with the law we will have no choice but to file a law suit against you.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Your joke takes it to the extreme, but I truly believe that these people wouldn't consider "listening" to be "stealing", but they might consider "remembering" to be stealing. After all, the act of remembering a song or movie is tantamount to keeping an unauthorized copy of the work in your head.

        The ??AA's Holy Grail would be a technology that allowed people to pay money to experience their products and walk away with a good feeling about it (to encourage future sales), but at the same time render them unab
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by rk (6314)

          "The ??AA's Holy Grail would be a technology that allowed people to pay money to experience their products and walk away with a good feeling about it (to encourage future sales), but at the same time render them unable to remember the specifics (to encourage paing money for the same thing again)."

          So that explains modern pop music. It's all so clear now.

      • Re:Next Step (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bentcd (690786) <bcd@pvv.org> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:50AM (#20837235) Homepage

        And after that...
        Dear sir or madam;

        We respectfully request that you cease and desist from listening to our music.
        Technically, we're probably already there. When playing music, you are sending electrical signals down a wire - this is a copy of the music. Then you induce vibrations in a speaker corresponding to the music - another copy. This then produces sound waves to travel through the air - a third copy. The sound waves hit your ears and induce neural impulses that are transmitted towards your brain - a fourth copy. Finally, you build an internal cognitive picture of the music in question, which makes for the fifth and final theft.

        When you have bought a CD, you are /possibly/ allowed to hold it in your hand, look at it and wistfully try to imagine what the music might be like if you were permitted to actually listen to it. But I may be overly optimistic. After all, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
        • I think you've finally figured that one out!

          When playing music, you are sending electrical signals down a wire - this is a copy of the music. Then you induce vibrations in a speaker corresponding to the music - another copy. This then produces sound waves to travel through the air - a third copy. The sound waves hit your ears and induce neural impulses that are transmitted towards your brain - a fourth copy

          We've all wondered about how they could justify high prices for CD's. You are in fact, already payin

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:24AM (#20835963)
    Then I might as well just skip buying the cd and go straight to downloading it from eDonkey. Seriously, if it's come to buying one copy for every device I want to listen on (including one cd for my car and one cd for my home stereo) then fuck it, I am just going to steal it from the get go. Suck on it, Sony.
    • by Dunbal (464142) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:27AM (#20836013)
      Oh no, it gets better than that. You're going to have to buy a copy every single time you REMEMBER a song.
  • that is bull (Score:3, Informative)

    by swschrad (312009) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:24AM (#20835967) Homepage Journal
    the copyright act allows for format transfer. usual restrictions apply.

    sony sucks.
  • by CardinalPilot (1057108) * on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:26AM (#20835989)
    "Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php [riaa.com]
  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:26AM (#20835995)
    But in this instance I can't. When confronted with such an asinine comment my gut reactions kick in and all I can think of is:

    I want to throw a phonebook at her and knock her off the podium. Preferably mid-sentence with video footage. Big yellow book smacking her in the side of her head from out of nowhere. Sure, I'd go to jail for assault, but that video would be on the internet. Being shared (she would call it stolen) and laughed at by thousands of people. That would be my solace.

    Sorry for my lapse of any real discussion, but some people just need a good old whack upside the head.
  • by k3v0 (592611) <k3v0@kTWAIN3v0.net minus author> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:28AM (#20836029) Homepage Journal
    but installing rootkits is okay
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      Of course! After all, with the rootkit deal, they didn't steal anything from you. You actually got bonus material.
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:28AM (#20836035) Journal
    I suppose I can say that woman is a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, and should be thrown into Gitmo forever.

    Making a supposition, however, isn't the same thing as proving one, nor does it constitute a good prima face argument in its favor.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:30AM (#20836051) Homepage Journal
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act [wikipedia.org]

    Well I think Sony Electronics might have heard of this (betamax anyone?) [wikipedia.org] but Sony BMG hasn't? Aren't they part of he same corporate entity, or at least owned by the same corporate entity? Are the board members suffering from multiple personality disorder or something?
  • by phiwum (319633) <jesse@phiwumbda.org> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:30AM (#20836053) Homepage
    What a change from the Sony vs. Universal Studios case, when Sony argued (and won) that copying television programs for time-shifting was a legitimate exercise of fair use.

    That was back when Sony regarded themselves as a technology company rather than a content provider, of course.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lil'wombat (233322)
      Just a thought then, if they argued that position previously doesn't that preclude them from arguing the opposite later. Estopple anyone?
  • Four Words (Score:5, Informative)

    by Waffle Iron (339739) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:31AM (#20836077)
    Audio Home Recording Act:

    No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  • by zerojoker (812874) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:31AM (#20836081)
  • by adam613 (449819) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:32AM (#20836091)
    ...until Sony sues itself for contributing to piracy.
  • Much more damaging (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cracked Pottery (947450) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:33AM (#20836097)
    is the tendency of record companies to promote crap. The idea that Sony BMG thinks I shouldn't be allowed to commit CD's I have purchased to a library on my hard drive for convenience is outrageous. The major labels should know stealing when they see it, they have ripped off enough artists over the years.


    I think it would be nice to see the record cartel shrink even more as people spend more time listening to live music or playing it themselves instead of being passive consumers of recorded music. Folks might also consider patronizing independent artists.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:33AM (#20836109)
    Why would you put someone who lacks even a fundamental understanding of copyright law in charge of your litigation group?

    Oh wait... is she hot?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lurker2288 (995635)
      There was a photo of her up on Sony BMG's site, but then she realized that they had stolen her image and demanded that they remove it.
  • by WillAdams (45638) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:34AM (#20836125) Homepage
    which they've received for blank tapes and stop producing blank media suitable for copying music as a sign that they feel such actions are wrong.

    William

  • by siddesu (698447) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:38AM (#20836173)
    I wonder what is their business -- they have been bribing legislators into extending copyrights, engaging in egregious copyright abuse -- RIAA-style and otherwise, price fixing, racket, swindling artists of their money; likely more than once their agents have supplied those said artists with banned substances, resulting in, among other harm, loss of creative output from the said artists, to the detriment of us all. they fail to see that it is easy to fling shit, and their shit is likely stinkier than mere copying of a CD. what is amusing is how short-sighted the MAFIAA-like institutions are to continue their crusade against the public domain in the dumbest way possible -- by accusing larger and larger groups of the said society of doing the things it has always done. hey, MAFIAA guys, i have news for you. it may be called copyright, but it ain't a right -- it is a license to a monopoly. it may go as it has come -- if you press too much, the backlash against copyright-like monopoly may come sooner and with more power than you can possibly imagine ;)
  • by therufus (677843) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:43AM (#20836247)
    People in the general public are starting to get sick and tired of hearing what they can and can't do with music. No wonder the rate of piracy is growing on a daily basis. When you have the chest-beating RIAA and it's affiliates telling people they should pay more and more for music (which is substandard these days IMHO, but thats another topic), people are more likely to look for other resources to acquire the music they want. I believe it's starting to turn into the 'path of least resistance' theory, relative to spending money on music. If you keep jacking prices up, telling people they can't use their purchased item the way they want to and blame it on illegal file sharing software, people are going to start using the illegal file sharing software due to the fact they can't afford the product anymore.

    Can you imagine if you were to use the metaphor of eating. If you hunger for food, and buy food to eat, you will eat it when you want. If you were suddenly told that you could only eat during certain hours and couldn't share your food with others who can't afford to eat, you wouldn't be to happy. Suddenly, there is a place where they stole the same seeds (metaphorically speaking) to make the same food but they gave it away for free. The people you used to buy the food off would go out of business right? So they try to bend the laws and make new ones to protect something that should be free (or at least paid back to the farmers) from the thieves.

    Here is the problem with that analogy. The farmers work hard to make the food we eat, but they get paid tiny amounts of money for their goods. The store puts a huge markup on it and rips off the consumer.

    Do you see the pattern?

    If the RIAA, BMG, SONY, UMG, EMI, etc keep on proclaiming to the masses that they own the music, they will be killed off like the dinosaurs they are.

    I certainly hope I stayed on topic for that.

    Time for a lie down methinks.
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:44AM (#20836263) Journal
    Sony should not really focus or speak up on copying. Copying is moot nowadays as the properties are not physical, but intellectual. A computer may copy a song as soon as you transfer something bought on iTunes to your iPod. Should that be an illegal action? Of course not! But still, you did, indeed, copy a file you had downloaded. Is there a difference here in what one might do with a CD? No, because in both cases, you make another copy of the product for playing in e.g. a mobile device.

    The only straw that's left for Sony to grasp at is not about copying, but about breaching licenses. But that would seem to apply more to DRM'ed material to me, than physical CD's. You do click through a license agreement when installing iTunes and there is also the DMCA to disallow decrypting DRM protected media. But what about CD's? I don't enter even something as little as a click through contract, and neither do I need to (normally, thank god) decrypt a CD to rip its content.

    This Sony rep may "suppose" whatever he wish, but that's to me merely his opinion, not law or anything. If it's considered fair use to play a single intellectual property for own use on your own devices (and I can't really see how it could possibly be anything but that), then this should be OK. Let's not involve the copying part so much, because a computer copies files a lot, even sometimes when you don't know it or it's not 100% apparent to the user, or not necessarily a user initiated action. It copies a lot of things to RAM too, which is quite literally transfering material from your hard drive to another hardware device.

    Involving copying will just make matters more complex to sort out and understand for their customers and is, besides, quite irrelevant. Who cares how many copies you make and to where? IMHO, what only matters is whether you breach a contract. And in that case, I can only agree with them that the copyright infringement here is if it's causing a financial loss to the copyright holder.

    But then -- that would mean that, in this case, Sony would need to honestly believe an artist lose money on someone who carries an owned CD to the car stereo, which is quite crazy. Since that also means a user isn't purchasing two copies for playing it on another device.
  • by pla (258480) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:46AM (#20836281) Journal
    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 generally pay for my music. I won't claim that I own a CD for every song in my collection, but easily over 99% of them. I buy most of them used for a pittance, and rip them to my file server. I do not use P2P programs, or download from any of the massive music archives, or USE the NET to easily find anything I might ever what to listen to, or even copy (and keep) tracks from friends. I do this because I, as do most people, prefer to stay legal. I consider myself reasonable on that... Sony provides something I want, I provide them with the only thing they want.

    So when Sony comes out and makes statements like this, calling me a thief for using the music I buy in the way I prefer, it makes me unhappy. This leads to a certain level of cognitive dissonance on my part - I want to engage in a fair trade of goods for money, but the other party considers my terms a form of robbery.

    As I will not change my current behavior for the sake of making Sony feel better, nor will I give up the pleasure of listening to music that happens to fall under their control, they have effectively removed my mental barrier to "stealing" their entire catalog.

    Congrats, Sony, you have made it clear you consider the two actions - Buying and stealing - equivalent. Thus, I feel no moral dilemma in seeking out and downloading every song you've ever published. You consider that the same as my buying them, so why would I actually pay for them? By simply downloading them all, you view me the same, yet I save thousands of dollars. Thank you, Sony, for making this so much easier!
  • by sherriw (794536) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:56AM (#20836429)
    Ok, so let's pretend I'm a big Sony fanboi (do these even exist?) and I want to listen to my Sony produced music 'legally'. I have a Sony stereo system, Sony mp3 player and a Sony laptop. Oh, and I want to pop it on a memory stick and listen to it on my Sony PS3. Now, suppose I bought a whole CD but I really only like 5 songs on the CD. Suppose I paid $15 for it. That's $3 per song since I don't care about the other crappy filler songs.

    I have 4 music playing devices (all Sony brand 'cause remember I'm pretending to be a big Sony fan), so I'll have to re-buy the songs online for each device.

    So, the CD for my stereo is $3 /song, and to buy online let's say $1 per song times 3. That's $6 per song to listen to that song on all the devices I have. Oh, but I have 5 songs from that album I like so that's $30 of music for 5 songs.

    Now, someone please name even ONE song that's worth that price? I can listen to the radio for FREE and hear most songs eventually.

    This is a joke. Sony, please show me where the awesome musical masterpieces that are worth $6 per song are. I'm dying to know... cause what's out these days isn't worth a few quarters.

    Idiots.
  • by snowwrestler (896305) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:14AM (#20836705)
    In all seriousness, Sony's board should take a long hard look at the legal advice the company is receiving.

    From a legal standpoint, this an incorrect statement on a subject that not only has a Supreme-Court-level case precedent, but which was decided by an argument that Sony themselves advanced.

    From a practical standpoint, Sony makes quite a bit of money from electronic devices that do the very things to which Jennifer is referring. It is not good business to level accusations against broad swaths of your own customers.

    From an investing standpoint, her statement under oath, as head of litigation for the music unit, could easily be construed as a warning that in the future, Sony will consider litigating against their own customers for using Sony products in the way they were designed. She is in a position of management and her statement has forward-looking implications.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @10:22AM (#20836849) Homepage
    I think buying a CD for use in your car and then playing it in a portable player, or in your office's computer or at home is stealing! You bought the CD for use in the car! You should buy another one for at home, another for in the office and another for your portable player. With the availability for consumers to buy multiple copies of the same thing, there's no need for "personal backups" or any other such nonsense.

    Buy the same thing over and over and over. You don't buy just one loaf of bread do you? You don't buy just one shirt do you? Why can't they get it through your collective heads that you NEED to BUY and BUY and BUY! Stop thinking! Stop budgeting! BUY BUY BUY!!! Who cares if they don't come out with anything new! BUY!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by pandrijeczko (588093)
      Buy the same thing over and over and over.

      Fans of hip-hop and "RnB" are already well-versed in doing just that.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @11:26AM (#20837833)
    This isn't about actually making a sensible statement. I'd say, rather this is another attempt at creating some FUD, spinning a story and fabricating "truth".

    For years, the content industry has been engaged in misinformation, claiming something as illegal that wasn't. Making private copies of your content, or even downloading content, is not illegal contrary to their claims, at least in many countries.

    Why do you think they wouldn't start a spin about media shifting and fabricating something about it being illegal?

    People are generally not lawyers. Instead, they tend to believe it if a lawyer claims something as being illegal. They hear something, hear it again (from a "different" source, like another media lawyer) and presto, instant truth. I'd guess this wasn't the last time we've heard that spin.
  • Out of print CDs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scottsk (781208) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:00PM (#20838435) Homepage
    What about all the CDs which are out of print, that the record companies will not sell any longer? How do you buy a copy of a CD that is not for sale? I thought that was the whole point of fair use, to have a way to preserve media that isn't being sold anymore.
  • by JohnnyGTO (102952) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:23PM (#20839841) Homepage
    is STEALING! You must all nuke your cd's and buy new ones after each use. You are not entitled to listen to the same crappy song more then once!
  • ahhhhh!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pakar (813627) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:55PM (#20840383)
    Now i finally understand how they calculate the amount lost to piracy!
  • by PixelScuba (686633) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @02:16PM (#20840771)
    http://torrentfreak.com/george-bush-vs-the-riaa/ [torrentfreak.com]

    We're already fed up with the handling of the war... and now BMG blows the whistle on the Bush administration's blatant violation of copyright law. I hope BMG takes care of this and faithfully executes their right, as copyright holder, to bring this man to justice!

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...