RIAA Says Copying Music to Computer for Personal Use OK, Washington Post and Blogs Have it Wrong

The Internet Patrol - Patrolling the Internet for You

Much has been made in the media this week about the news that the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) has announced, through one of their lawsuits, that they now consider it illegal for you to copy music from a CD you have purchased to your own computer, for your own personal use.

The one thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the RIAA has not said this at all. In fact, they have explicitly stated that they are not concerned with people copying music to their computer (or iPod, or other personal MP3 player) for their own personal use.


The brouhaha started when Marc Fisher, a journalist with the Washington Post, wrote a blog post on his Wash Post blog, claiming that in the RIAA’s newest lawsuit, in which they are suing Mr. Jeffrey Howell for unauthorized distribution (filesharing) of copyrighted material (music), the RIAA was saying to consumers, essentially, “Even If You Bought The CD, You’re Still A Crook” (that’s the title of Fisher’s blog post). In the blog post, Fisher wrote that the RIAA claims “that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.”

The problem with what Fisher wrote is that it is worse than hyperbole – it is pure fiction. In fact, what the lawsuit says is that the defendant (Howell) made a copy of his music and then put it in the shared folder. In other words, rather than keeping the copies in his own person, private directory (folder) on his computer, he put it in the place where you put files that you are going to share – the “shared folder”. And this wasn’t just any shared folder – it was his shared folder for Kazaa – a program designed specifically to share files with others.

The next day, an article by Fisher appeared in the Washington Post, and in that article, entitled “Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use”, Fisher again repeated the fiction that the RIAA is claiming “that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.” (Yep, he stated the same – wrong – thing in both his blog post and his article.)

No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free?
Click for amount options
Other Amount:
What info did you find here today?:

 

Not only is it fiction that the RIAA is going after someone simply for transferring music to his computer, but the very headline of the article – suggesting that the RIAA is going after copying for ‘personal use’, is a fiction.

In short, that’s not what the lawsuit says at all, and even a cursory reading by a layperson makes that clear. Here is the relevant (and yet surprisingly short) paragraph of the lawsuit, which Fisher either failed to understand – or twisted to suit his own purpose (you be the judge – either way it shows an unconscionable lack of ethical rigor for someone writing for such a prestigious and influential outlet as the Washington Post). We are presenting here the paragraph in its full text; while most other reports on this issue have removed extraneous wording, we are leaving it in so that you can see all of the language in its full context:

“Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. ”

 

Now, Marc Fisher, in both his blog post and his Washington Post article, relies heavily on the first sentence – and completely ignores the last sentence.

In Fisher’s world, the important point – and, he claims, the reason for the lawsuit – is that Howell made copies of some music “for his and his wife’s use.” He completely neglects the part where Howell converted the music to MP3 and put the copies in his Kazaa shared folder.

Which is too bad, because that is precisely what the lawsuit is actually about.

In short, the RIAA is not going after people who make copies of music for their own personal use – for example people who rip CDs to their computer for use on their iPod or MP3 player.

But there is no need to take our word for it. Because in an interview on NPR today, in which Marc Fisher and RIAA President Cary Sherman were brought head-to-head, Sherman said – very pointedly – that the RIAA is not interested in going after people who copy music to their computer (or their music player) for personal use.

Sherman stopped short of saying that it was legal for people to make personal copies – and Fisher, who refused to acknowledge that he had misreported the issue and was, uh, you know, wrong – attempted to deflect the attention from his wrongness by making Sherman wrong for not saying that it was legal to make personal copies – but you know, it isn’t Sherman’s place to say that it is legal – he’s neither a lawyer or a law maker, and that’s a matter of interpretation of copyright law.

But he did say, clearly and publicly, that the RIAA isn’t interested in people who copy music for their own personal use, and that’s good enough for us, even if it isn’t for Marc Fisher and his employer, the Washington Post.

No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free?
Click for amount options
Other Amount:
What info did you find here today?:

People also searched for copying music cd legal, copying music for personal use, is copying other peoples music illegal?, is downloading music for personal use illegal, is it illegal to download music for personal use, is it legal to save music from a personal cd to digital, is it legal to tape songs from computer videos for personal use, is it ok to download music for personal use, updates for your own personal use

5 thoughts on “RIAA Says Copying Music to Computer for Personal Use OK, Washington Post and Blogs Have it Wrong

  1. Anne, you can “rah-rah” for the RIAA all you want but I would rather listen to Mr. Fisher’s exaggerations and misquotes and not to the RIAA’s lies and innuendo. They and the music industry moguls they represent are crooks and idiots and need to be shown as such with all the same medicine that they are pushing down our throats. Hoorah to Mr. Fisher! Make the cowards come out from the bushes and defend themselves!

  2. I think the RIAA is simply making themselves unloved in all areas, since they represent people who have much (the recording industry) against people who have little (college students, teenagers). This is a corporation having the same rights as a human being.
    Who gets the money they steal from college students and teens when they win in a court that is stacked against them? The artist who wrote the song, the label that produced it? I doubt it. I don’t think it is about the artists at all, but about the strangle hold the RIAA has over the songs out there, and even the songs on the CD’s in someone’s home!
    This is once again a situation where the corporation has rights above those of a citizen; that they can make a specious and spurious request for information that ordinarily would be sacrosanct, the relation between an ISP and the customer being one of good faith. Plus, the release of such information should really be undertaken by a law enforcement official, viz the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
    Here it is ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    If you think I have a problem with corporations, you are correct; they have too many rights, and those rights are the rights given by the Almighty Dollar, not, as the document says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Somehow, I don’t think the RIAA represents all of us.
    There are so many other ways of making money than robbing the poorest and weakest amongst us.
    Rev. A. Netherton

  3. I think the furor is still justified, … at least emotionally, on one side – if not both.

    I was alarmed and unhappy with the first report, which you claim was falsified; but I am even more disgruntled that they got belligerent over the placement of “ripped” files in a “Shared Folder”. That’s more of a threat, more – because it specifies a term which is in common knowledge and usage. This is pointedly alarming because entire walls of libraries (law libraries, especially) are filled with Volumes of Books entitled “Words And Phrases”. Terms are codified and catagorized for later litigous use.

    Specification of “Shared” is firing a “Bow Shot” at everyone. Sure, the later distinction of “Kazza Shared Folder” was made, but I guarantee you that will never find its way into “Words And Phrases”, but “Shared” will.

    An earlier comment has been posted in response to this term and its potential use against the public.

    Yes, there are several people who rip a CD on one machine – place the folders in “Shared” and then pick them up on the computer which is connected to the sound system(s) in the building.

    Sorry, but if you don’t like the reporter’s “take” of the story, you should be more incensed at the use of specification in the real thing.

    As an earlier poster reminded us: the choice of the “mouthpiece” for the RIAA to say they may not “go after” people to do such-and-such; when combined with the specification of “Shared” in the transcript, offers me no comfort.

    I appreciate your attempt to clear the waters re: the reporter/Washington Post article, but the Washington Post is not the one invading people’s homes, schools, and lives – is it???

    We need to know our enemy more than worry about a columnist and his bias.

  4. The implication here is that putting the files in *any* shared folder would be illegal (at least to the RIAA), ignoring the fact that, under an OS where there are frequently separate user accounts even on the same system, a “shared” folder may be necessary for his wife to open them.

    Furthermore, Sherman saying that the RIAA is “not interested in going after people for who copy music to their computer (or their music player) for personal use” is not the same as saying the RIAA considers it legal.

  5. While it looks like Marc Fisher’s column is wrong with regard to the Howell case, he unfortunately got one thing right — the head of litigation for Sony BMG, Jennifer Pariser, really did say:

    “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’.”

    according to http://tinyurl.com/2cln52 and many other sites that reported her comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.