Tim Lee

Pirates in High Places

Last month, Corey Doctorow pointed out that by the RIAA’s reckoning, President Bush is a music thief. As part of the DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA said that ripping a CD to your portable music player without authorization is against the law. And since the Beatles haven’t allowed their music on Apple’s iTunes Music Store, the only other ways to get Beatles music onto your iPod is by ripping a CD (illegal) or using a peer-to-peer downloading service (also illegal).

Now Radley points out that Hillary Clinton’s a lawbreaker too.

May 25, 2006 | Comments |

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I know your point is about the nutty RIAA. But the Ninth Circus Court, as I recall, ruled some years ago in the Diamond Rio case that putting songs from your CD on your MP3 player is not infringement because it fit the intent of the American Home Recording Act, among other reasons. I'm not a lawyer, just a mere mortal, but I am not aware of that ruling having been overturned.

    I doubt if any of Bush's or Clinton's songs came from a peer to peer download. Although, depending on who loaded their iPods, you never know. Should we demand a Special Counsel investigation of piracy at the highest levels of government?
    • ^
    • v
    Eric, you're right, of course. But the RIAA doesn't seem to agree with you.
    • ^
    • v
    Tim >"...the RIAA doesn't seem to agree with you."


    So ?


    What does the law say ? (hint - see eric`s comment)


    "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." - John Maynard Keynes

    • ^
    • v
    The reason Tim is worried is that the RIAA has essentially written the copyright laws for the last 15 years or so. Note that if they had ripped the track from a copy protected CD, or a DVD, DVD-A, or SACD; than they would have been breaking the law!

    While the Rio case upheld the fair-use exemption for space-shifting; numerous other cases have shown that the DMCA don't allow fair-use exceptions for the anti-circumvention clauses. So while fair-use may permit you to rip, you are not allowed to circumvent copy protection measures that prevent you from ripping! Welcome to the legal system written by the RIAA.

    To be fair, they are not quite all powerful; as they have not yet succeeded in totally stamping out fair-use. Take a look at the latest dingbat laws being proposed before congress, and you can see that they are still hard at work though. They all begin the same way: because of copyright piracy threats from unprecedented new media; we need {insert clause that does not address piracy but that does take away fair-use rights}.

    Earlier in the 20th century, congress resisted attempts to legally stifle piano rolls, movies, radio, TV, cable TV, and the VCR; all of which the copyright holders of the day said would cause irreparable harm. The difference now is that in 1992 (with the AHRA, and later the DMCA) congress sold out to special interests instead of the public good.

    • ^
    • v
    The reason Tim is worried is that the RIAA has essentially written the copyright laws for the last 15 years or so.

    There was an amusing exchange between Hilary Rosen and Sen. Orrin Hatch around 1999-2001 when she was speaking to the Senate. She insisted that the DMCA did not allow backups of one's own CDs; Sen. Hatch, a primary sponsor of the law, disagreed and said that it was obviously fair use to backup one's CDs and even to make copies for one's wife to play in the car. She very loudly disagreed at the time and said that he didn't know his own law.

    While the RIAA and MPAA may have helped write copyright law over the last 15 years (together with most of the rest of the world, thanks to the US finally acceeding to the Berne Convention in 1989 and dropping requirements for registration of copyright and copyright notices, among other things), the courts have generally not gone along with their theories.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus