Silence Will Soon Be Your Only Defense Against The Recording Industry
RIAA Attorney, Richard Gabriels commenting on the $220,000 judgment levied against a Minnesota woman who was found liable for sharing 24 songs on the Internet
"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'."
Sony/BMG Head of Litigation, Jennifer Pariser in her testimony.
Not wanting to argue the merits of the case, this is a chilling pair of statements from the Recording Industry Association of America. First, they indicate that the RIAA's position on litigation is: Merits, truth, and probable cause be damned. If we come after you, you better f*cking settle, or we will destroy you. Second, Ms. Pariser's statement is a good indicator of who the RIAA will be after next: Individuals who copy their own music for personal enjoyment.
Did you get that? If you rip the CDs you've purchased--MUSIC YOU OWN--the RIAA says you are infringing on their copyrights. Put that music on your iPod...you're infringing. Buy something from iTunes and listen to it on more than one device...you're infringing! And exactly how damaging could that be? Well taking my own music collection as an example--and let me add that I NEVER download music--we have:
Approximately 9000 tracks of music
All 9000 tracks ripped and stored on my personal music server
All 9000 tracks backed up to portable drives (in case my server crashes)
At any one time, approximately 50%, 4500 tracks, on a portable device of some kind
So...approximately 22,500 copies of music tracks that I own and that would, according to the RIAA's definition, infringe on their copyrights. Now...using the scale of the judgment imposed in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas (at say... 1/10 of the so-called "damage" per track), we have 22,500 tracks at $925 per track. Thus, the RIAA could justify suing me for: $20,812,500
It's time consumers faced facts. Recording industry companies are predators. They are bent on destroying fair use and willing to change the definition copyright infringement in order to do it. They are willing to go after the innocent to achieve their goals (many RIAA cases have been thrown out for lack of evidence). And they are willing to threaten individuals with judgments so outrageous that the only sane alternative, regardless of guilt or innocence, is to settle.
Given these facts, silence--in other words the refusal to purchase any recording whose copyright is held and administered by the RIAA--will soon be one's only defense.
Fortunately those ##!%$#s at the RIAA can't trace that. Uh, can they?
Now, responding to the post: It seems that 'the man' is never content just to stomp on the little guy - he always takes the time to put on his heaviest hobnail boots first.
We don't have debter's prisons do we? I thought I heard there was an idea of starting back up the practice of throwing people in jail who can't pay their debts...something people came to 13 colonies to avoid...something that when America was founded, became against the law.
Are they going to only go after gross offenders? Those that upload/download/share thousands of songs?
Or will they now come after Kvatch that he's given himself up?
How many lawyers are chomping at the bit to prosecute these cases?
What's going to be interesting is the result of the way Radiohead is selling their new album. No label bullshit, pay what you want. I like buying CDs, getting the booklet, the artwork, but anything that's another nail in the coffin of the outmoded recording industry is a good thing.
Mr_Blog... Something like:
Marcel Mimes the Blues ;-)
Tom... There was a time when making analog tapes from CDs was considered "fair use". Not anymore.
RAFFI... You said it. They're going to decimate their own industry.
Lizzy... The stakes are pretty high now. People can't afford to make mistakes.
Chuck... Good news? What's that? :-)
I'd expect legislation soon that does away with the option of declaring bankruptcy in the face of crushing court judgements.
SA... Student loans, huh? No surprise there I suppose.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to copy a bunch of my CDs to send to someone who didn't pay for them. Take that, The Man.
The record labels do tick me off, when i have paid 3 times (vinyl, cassette and CD)for the same song i have earnt the right to put it onto any device i want to.
I think a boycott is in order here.
I don't mean for one or two days, I'm talking about a long boycott. Say like from just before Thanksgiving til after the New Year.
Don't buy any CD, DVD or anything related to the music or video industry. Hit them where it hurts the most, in their wallets.
No, no one wants to give up buying that new album of their favorite singer or new dvd of their favorite actor or actress.
Until everyone decides that they have had enough of this bs nothing will change.
Just my two cents worth.
They are in panic mode because they are losing money. Why are they losing money? I think it's because they have completely screwed up the music industry by deciding for us what is going to be popular. I can't stand most major label stuff any more... I have gone almost completely to buying independent label music. There is a lot of it out there that is very good and worthwhile, but the mainstream music industry screws the more creative artists by not giving them airtime, not signing them, not promoting them, etc. It isn't you or me that screws the struggling artists by downloading a song here or there, or even by sharing a song or a CD.
The RIAA brought all this stuff on themselves, and now they are trying to make themselves look powerful by trampling on us music consumers. Screw 'em.