The Day the Music Died: Does the Music Industry Want to Make Criminals of Us All?
The Recording Industry Association of America's lawsuits against illegal music downloaders is old news, right? For years now, the organization has been going after dangerous criminals that include nine year old file sharers and elderly grandparents who don't know KaZaA from a kazoo (among others) with remarkable consistency.
On a couple of occasions, the targets of their litigation have fought them and won. However, in the vast majority of cases the sued individuals have settled out of court, coughing up however many thousands of dollars the RIAA demanded. And who can blame them, when contesting the suit means taking the risk of losing big, like the Minnesota woman who was found liable by a jury back in October and ordered to pay $222,000 for downloading 24 songs. See
http://www.wxpnews.com/Q85JLJ/080108-Illegal-Download
Even many of us who abhore the idea of stealing intellectual property find the RIAA's tactics distasteful and the damages they claim preposterous. But this holiday season, some of the organization's members came up with a brand new "gift" for music lovers that got the blogs buzzing and many people threatening to swear off music completely. It seemed that they had decided to redefine the meaning of "illegal."
Up until now, those of us who dutifully purchase the CD in order to rip it to MP3 so we can listen to it on our computers and portable players thought we were doing the right thing, and thus safe from the RIAA music Gestapo. Then we had to think again. A recent Washington Post column quoted Sony BMG's chief litigator as testifying in court that copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy." You can read the full Washington Post article here:
http://www.wxpnews.com/Q85JLJ/080108-Download-Uproar
The backlash from consumers (i.e., potential customers) has caused the RIAA to "clarify" its position. They point out that in a recent filing against an Arizona man, their legal brief said ""Once [the defendant] 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." RIAA's defenders say that means you're not considered a criminal until you put the copied music into a file sharing folder. Of course, that seems to contradict the Sony BMG stance. Read a defense of RIAA's position here:
http://www.wxpnews.com/Q85JLJ/080108-RIAA-Position
On the other hand, a number of industry pundits have criticized RIAA for failing to respond to the debate by just stating categorically that it's legal for you to copy your purchased CDs for your own personal use. Instead, the president of RIAA sidestepped the question, saying that "copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements." That certainly makes it appear that RIAA wants to have their cake and eat it, too. They don't want to completely enrage music fans by upholding a position that everyone who copies their CDs to an MP3 player is a criminal, but also don't want to concede that it's lawful.
At this point, it looks like the Washington Post reporter did exaggerate what RIAA said in the Arizona lawsuit. But despite the damage control - in the form of dozens of posts that have since appeared defending RIAA - the organization doesn't exactly come out smelling like a rose. They point to the fact that they have never brought a suit against anyone for ripping songs for their own personal use, but why won't they just say it's legal? It certainly makes consumers feel as if the industry wants to reserve the right to bring those sorts of suits in the future.
There's little doubt that if the industry ever does go that far, they're likely to kill the music business for good. Who's going to buy CDs if they aren't allowed to copy them for their own personal use? Not me, and I've heard from quite a few readers who say the same. The good news is that even if the RIAA does decide to try that, it's doubtful that the courts would uphold it. There have been too many precedents set, for instance in the case of copying TV programs for personal use (timeshifting, archiving, etc.) that give consumers the right to make such copies.
Tell us what you think. Has the RIAA been unfairly accused? Are their intentions benign? Are they just trying to protect their members from true piracy? Or would they, if they thought they could get away with it, force consumers to pay over and over and over for the same song? Let us know your opinions at feedback@wxpnews.com.
