Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing 767
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!"
Really depends on what country you live in (Score:2, Informative)
that is bull (Score:3, Informative)
sony sucks.
For once I prefer the RIAA position! (Score:5, Informative)
Contact details (Score:5, Informative)
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1 [findlaw.com]
Four Words (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So I guess everyone was stealing... (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 felt that they could only explicitly advocate changes that weren't contrary to the overarching EU framework. Thus they proposed an exemption for format shifting (which, incidentally, the big record labels already publicly said they'd turn a blind eye to in the UK — how does that fit with the Sony lawyer's statement here?). However, they did not go as far as proposing what I would like to see: a more general private use exemption, where essentially once you've got legitimate access to some content for yourself, any convenience copies for personal use are OK (format shifting, back-ups, mix tapes, etc.) but broadcast or distribution to others is still against the rules without a suitable additional licence. It seems to me that this is entirely consistent with the basic principle of copyright, and the only harm it does to content providers is to screw those who want people to pay for the same thing multiple times based on legal technicalities.
Re:This is where I normally try to be insightful (Score:1, Informative)
RIAA position not quite as good as you think... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nope. (Score:1, Informative)
See my post above - I agree that copying CD's is legal under fair use doctrines, but this particular passage has nothing to do with that.
Re:Contact details (Score:3, Informative)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DC133FF933A15752C0A967958260 [nytimes.com]
Always interesting when people put their foot in their mouth publicly, without stopping to consider how much of their lives are available for review.
Re:It's only a matter of time... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Suppositions (Score:5, Informative)
"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
Re:Not news. (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, you can tell it to rip MP3 (read: no DRM), which you can then copy off onto other devices. My jaw hit the floor.
Re:Reading comprehension. (Score:2, Informative)
Ummm betamax court case anyone... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not news. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sony is once again being EVIL. (Score:3, Informative)
So you're saying that if I want to print a copy of Romeo and Juliet, that the government can arbitrarily decide to prevent me from doing so, and can in fact exercise prior restraint against me, because I do not have a right to do so?
If you think that, you must be delusional.
Further, I can express myself perfectly fine using the words of others (e.g. how many
Your argument has made you look silly. You may wish to do something about that, e.g. learning about the subjects you're talking about before you next open your mouth. Up to you, of course.