×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony BMG Says Ripping CDs is Stealing

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the well-big-shock-here dept.

Media 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!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

767 comments

She continued her testimony saying... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20835919)

I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

Suppositions (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835935)

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.
When an individual makes a statement like that, I suppose we can say that person is completely out of their moldy gourd.

Re:Suppositions (5, Funny)

Vorghagen (1154761) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835981)

Now they're just trying to look like asshats. Before this we could almost give them the benefit of the doubt, but now...... nope.

Re:Suppositions (2, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836255)

No kidding.
When I read this all I could think was WTF? Actually I only got as far as W? and I felt neurons popping off like so many kernels of corn in my head. Isn't this considered fair use? I remember not long ago a certain in-duh-vidual in the head of the RIAA saying that this was a non-issue, that making a single copy for a friend was even a non-issue, and that the issue was file sharing. All of a sudden that asshat looks reasonable!
-nB

Contact details (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836009)

Tell Jennifer what you think of her - (212) 833-7362

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1 [findlaw.com]

Re:Contact details (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836205)

Boy, she sure wasn't happy when I told her she was a stupid litigious bitch... and then asked her on a date. She sounds hot. Honestly!

It's a FAX (5, Funny)

thegnu (557446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836309)

I don't know if they hooked up a fax machine because of the flood of calls, but please please, someone with a fax, send them something.

For extra points, tape several sheets together and write "We Will Not Purchase Music From Sony BMG Until You Change Your Position," feed it through the fax machine, tape the ends together so they receive never-ending protest message, take a picture of yourself doing it (not your face, of course), post it on imageshack.us, and share the joy with the rest of us.

You can do it. I know you can.

Re:Suppositions (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836011)

Furthermore, We can presume that when a "retail" CD Pressing company that manufacturers all of these CDs for a RIAA company does their work, it's wholescale chinese-pirate-eclipsing piracy. If copying one song is stealing, what do you call copying 17 tracks across millions of discs!

Don't you just love blanket statements? :D

Re:Suppositions (4, Insightful)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836039)

So that means the people who bought Sony MD Walkmans in the early 90's before file sharing was common place were supposed to buy a separate set of CDs for it? Did it say that anywhere on the box? No!

Re:Suppositions (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836321)

Actually, the Sony software actually facilitates the copying of the CD to the Minidisc. Buying a second CD and copying those tracks would not suffice, because you're just copying CD number 2, which is still stealing, according to them. According to this statement, the only music you should be able to play actual pre-recorded minidiscs, which I don't even think are sold anymore. They even still sell Minidisc players [sonystyle.ca], which from what I can tell, don't even support any DRM'd media formats, and can pretty much only play music which has been ripped from CD, or re-encoded from non-protected formats.

Makes as much sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836157)

...as any other argument that copying can somehow be theft.

Re:Suppositions (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836267)

Actually, she should SFTU. Her statement is defamatory libel. As a lawyer, she should know better (but then again, half of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class).

Really depends on what country you live in (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20835939)

In Canada we've paid the copyright levy for years for the "right" to do exactly this. They can't have it both ways. Either take our money via the levy and permit it, or take the money via second purchases but not both.

Re:Really depends on what country you live in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836131)

Either take our money via the levy and permit it, or take the money via second purchases but not both.
How about don't take my money via the levy and let me do what I want with the music I already fucking paid for?

Re:Really depends on what country you live in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836289)

We pay it the US as well, but it doesn't stop them from demanding more.

Re:Really depends on what country you live in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836313)

They can't have it both ways.


Sure they can, that's just your naivete speaking. You expect logic and righteousness from government for some unfathomable reason, and as such are the perfect mark to abuse with ridiculous legislation which will be ignored no matter the contradiction when convenient. cf. AHRA, DMCA, etc., ad absurdum.

So I guess everyone was stealing... (4, Insightful)

lightblade (938965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835943)

...when they were making mix tapes back in the 80's? If copying is copying then I don't see the difference...

Re:So I guess everyone was stealing... (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836061)

According to the new rules of the corporate culture, we are stealing every time we expect some product or services for our money. We're stealing when we expect to use an iPhone the way we want to use it. We're stealing when we assume "unlimited" bandwidth means "unlimited" bandwidth. We're stealing when we borrow a book from the library or from friend. We're stealing when we pay for health insurance and then actually use it. We're stealing when we expect the government to do something useful with our tax money like provide health care to children instead of providing security services to oil companies in Iraq.

We're supposed to shut up and pay.

Re:So I guess everyone was stealing... (5, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836215)

I think the RIAA would be perfectly consistent and argue that people were stealing in the 80's when they made mix tapes. Keep in mind that in those days that few people were on the internet. CD-R didn't exist. The only way consumers could copy music was to do so via low quality cassette tapes. The RIAA wasn't happy about home taping from day one and fought a losing battle against it, but since practical concerns (time involved in duplication, generational quality loss, and cost of media) made it impractical for people to engage in large scale duplication of music at home, they just turned a blind eye to the idea that a few people would share music with their friends via cassette tapes. However, choosing not to prosecute some guy for making one or two tapes for friends doesn't mean that they ever agreed that the practice was legal. It just would cost more to prosecute than it was worth.

OK, they just need to admit it (5, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835951)

Clearly all the major record labels got together about 15 years ago and decided that they had already made entirely too much money, and wagered amongst themselves to see who could do the most to kill the music industry. It's been a fun ride guys, but you're just getting too blatant now, we're onto your little game.

In that case... (4, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835953)

.... I didn't even bought a license as you claimed before. I bought nothing at all. So what exactly did I buy from you?

Re:In that case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836251)

.... I didn't even bought a license as you claimed before. I bought nothing at all. So what exactly did I buy from you?
A nice, shiny, silver coaster, and the privilege of not being sued, so long as you only use it as a coaster.

Next Step (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20835959)

"We market CDs to allow the customer to sample the music. Every additional time the customer listens to the CD translates to lost sales for us. We will make sure that legislation exists to charge the customer to prevent people from stealing and unfairly gaining from our copyrights."

Yours sincerely,
RIAA.

Well if it's all stealing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20835963)

Then I might as well just skip buying the cd and go straight to downloading it from eDonkey. Seriously, if it's come to buying one copy for every device I want to listen on (including one cd for my car and one cd for my home stereo) then fuck it, I am just going to steal it from the get go. Suck on it, Sony.

Re:Well if it's all stealing (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836013)

Oh no, it gets better than that. You're going to have to buy a copy every single time you REMEMBER a song.

Re:Well if it's all stealing (1)

rickett81 (987309) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836275)

If I get a song stuck in my head and I can't get it out, will I have to pay them each time it runs through? What if it is a song that I can only remember one line of. I keep trying to remember the rest of the song, but I can't. All I can hear is that one stupid line. Over and over and over . . . . driving me crazy. Are they going to start charging me a percentage of the song's cost every time that line tortures me as it mocks my feeble existance playing over and over? And if I can't remember the song, or the artist, who do I pay? ------- Going for the stupid/funny post, and it pales in comparison to the asinineness of Sony.

that is bull (2, Informative)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835967)

the copyright act allows for format transfer. usual restrictions apply.

sony sucks.

Re:that is bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836189)

Citation, please?

Wow (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835975)

...and I guess that somebody should tell Sony about a little legal detail called Fair Use.

Would it be immature for me to end this post by saying "Sheesh!"?

Re:Wow (1)

Pieces (817435) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836065)

I would agree with you. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Though, on the flipside, if Fair Use doesn't have any affect on anything anymore, I can't really write any more research papers because I would have to call all of my sources to get the explicit permission required just to use a quote. Profs can't really expect that.

Honestly though, we know that the right to fair use is protected in the Constitution. I don't see how they can make this claim with any legal backing whatsoever.

fair use is an excuse for stealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836237)

Like eminent domain. A legal defense for stealing doesn't make it not stealing, it just means you don't owe them anything when you do it.

Re:Wow (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836243)

dude, they were able to get rid of habeas corpus, one of the basic standings of our freedom in the USA. The shit-for-brains in congress happily signed it away for no real reason.

do you really think it will be any effort at all to get rid of the little annoying fair use from copyright law?

same claim every couple years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20835979)

Then quickly retracted when they realise how stupid it sounds out loud - repeated in hundreds of headlines, back through different departments. It's a vendor's dream to make someone buy the same thing several times for a single use but it's not going to happen.

That first US court trial happening right now for sharing must be either scaring them or making them more brazen. I can't quite tell.

For once I prefer the RIAA position! (5, Informative)

CardinalPilot (1057108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835989)

"Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." http://www.riaa.com/faq.php [riaa.com]

Re:For once I prefer the RIAA position! (1)

AmPz (572913) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836253)

Since Sony obviously objects to someone making a copy of a CD for the own peronal use... Does this mean that RIAA is lying on their webpage?

Shocking...

Re:For once I prefer the RIAA position! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836265)

Gray text on a white background? They really do hate us!

This is where I normally try to be insightful (5, Funny)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20835995)

But in this instance I can't. When confronted with such an asinine comment my gut reactions kick in and all I can think of is:

I want to throw a phonebook at her and knock her off the podium. Preferably mid-sentence with video footage. Big yellow book smacking her in the side of her head from out of nowhere. Sure, I'd go to jail for assault, but that video would be on the internet. Being shared (she would call it stolen) and laughed at by thousands of people. That would be my solace.

Sorry for my lapse of any real discussion, but some people just need a good old whack upside the head.

Re:This is where I normally try to be insightful (5, Funny)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836181)

You'd just be sued by R.R. Donnelly for misuse of their copyrighted material.

Fair Use? (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836019)

From what I understand, Federal copyright law allows copies to be made for "fair use". Basically, as long as you are not distributing the copies, you are allowed to do it. I can make all the archive copies I want, so long as I don't sell them...

Ignoring a redundant "service" != stealing (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836021)

"I sell bottled water, so if you take water from a natural resource and use it, then I guess we could say you are stealing."

Please. Just because someone's business model revolves around offering something completely redundant, it doesn't mean you're stealing if you tell them to piss off.

Wrongheaded View (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836023)

This view that people 'own' the CD, and that music companies are trying to screw us over is completly wrongheaded. You own the physical media, and the music companies grant you a license to USE the CD for use in a licensed device to listen to the contents. Sharing the CD with others is a perfect example of fair use. Burning / Ripping / Extracting the music violates this generous license that the music companies have afforded you.

DRM should be seen as a happy compromise. Music companies grant you MORE rights! All you need to do is install simple software to ensure you comply with the license. Ever protect your files with attributes / group permissions? that's DRM! It protects you and me, it's that simple!

The ALTERNATIVE is for people to repurchase the song, in a propper format, for a specific media player.

Re:Wrongheaded View (1, Offtopic)

drxenos (573895) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836191)

If you're going to troll, you need to be more subtle.

Re:Wrongheaded View (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836333)

That may have been true a few years ago, but now Slashdot is such a barren wasteland I predict he'll get plenty of replies: there are two already as I write this.

In response to your .sig: NO U

Re:Wrongheaded View (1)

BiloxiGeek (872377) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836199)

What the hell is a "licensed device"? Are you actually saying I need to buy a license for a CD-ROM drive in my computer, and another for the DVD player that's plugged into my TV? (After all it can play audio CD's) And yet a third license for the CD player in my truck?

I've never heard of any licensing requirement for a device that can play an audio CD.

Re:Wrongheaded View (1)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836241)

I don't know quite how to read this statement, I hope your being sarcastic. If not however, there is this whole "fair use" thing that the record companies seem to forget about. As another further up had posted, when you buy a CD (or tape, record, digital track), you have the right to make a copy of the contents of the media for backup purposes. You don't have the right to distribute it (off topic: yes I think copyright is valid, no I don't think that 100 years of copyright is valid, and the way that media owners are acting about it all is just fskin ridiculous)

Specious logic (0)

sshore (50665) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836033)

"I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!"

Hammers can be used to break into cars. I guess somebody should tell Home Depot that all their hammers allow this to occur!

Re:Specious logic (1)

ddrichardson (869910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836185)

Home depot aren't satanding in court telling people they're stealing every time they use a clawhammer to remove a nail they just hammered in.

"...I suppose we can say he stole..." (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836035)

I suppose I can say that woman is a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, and should be thrown into Gitmo forever.

Making a supposition, however, isn't the same thing as proving one, nor does it constitute a good prima face argument in its favor.

Sony owes me (-1, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836041)

sony owes me and they owe me big time. they owe me for Star Wars Galaxies. They owe me for ripping my cash month after month whilst each and every month breaking some balance in the game in order to keep players try to fix up their templates and pay in the meantime. they owe me for the jedi crap they pulled out on us, making players master ALL 24 professions in the game in order to be able to have a chance at becoming a jedi. They owe me for the second jedi crap they pulled, making people go through endless quests for 1 years duration in order to be able to become jedi. They owe me for the last jedi crap they pulled, for making jedi available to EACH and everyone without any effort, after putting all players through that effort for 2 years.

more than anything, they owe me for fuckin up a great game universe like Star Wars like this in order to cash cow players.

Sony, you are some company that EXPLOITS the customers, disdains them, violates their privacy, shuts up servers on the face of players without warning because 'its not making profit' (japan swg), places rootkits on people's computers.

Sony, go eat dung. You have stolen enough for yourselves. Its time to pay back.

Sony vs. Universal? (4, Insightful)

phiwum (319633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836053)

What a change from the Sony vs. Universal Studios case, when Sony argued (and won) that copying television programs for time-shifting was a legitimate exercise of fair use.

That was back when Sony regarded themselves as a technology company rather than a content provider, of course.

stealing? Is it? Isn't it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836055)

Here's an interesting question, why do Slashdot readers take a very legally exact definition of stealing to justify their actions but take a plain old dictionary definition of obviousness with relation to patent law?

Anyway here is a thought. Downloading a ripped mp3 from an unauthorized source is it stealing? You are gaining a product, which is being offered for price, without paying for it.

Of course everyone will reply to this to try and justify their actions with strange notions of available and not really depriving them of something, but in the end you got something without paying the price at which it was being offered.

Re:stealing? Is it? Isn't it? (1)

drxenos (573895) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836227)

No, I've never bought into that argument either, but you cannot tell me that making copies of media I already own, for my own use, is stealing!

Re:stealing? Is it? Isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836231)

Downloading a ripped mp3 from an unauthorized source is it stealing? You are gaining a product, which is being offered for price, without paying for it.

But the Audio Home Recording Act, which has been mentioned in numerous posts here, explicitly allows you to take something like an LP record and copy it to a cassette tape. What's the difference between that and ripping a CD to an iPod other than the technology involved?

Who buys Compact Discs anyway... (1)

rellimstap (1166487) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836059)

Who still buys CDs? They are just pissed because we don't shell out $18.00 for overpriced packaging.

Re:Who buys Compact Discs anyway... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836225)

CDs were NOT invented because of their so-called "superior digital sound"...the record labels simply found a cheaper way to produce the same $10 tapes and charge MORE for them. Their own desire to go digital because it was cheaper led the revolution towards digital music formats.

the record labels also thought CDs would be more difficult to copy-to for the average consumer, and agressively marketed CD players...but CD-R smashed that dream.

They dug their own grave.

If ever there was a person deserving of (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836063)

skullfucking, she'd be third on the list.

But still, that's 3 out of six billion, so it's an honored position.

An admission? (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836069)

I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!"
It does sound almost like they are conceding guilt for contributory infringement.

On the other hand, I don't think Sony-BMG is the same corporate entity as Sony Electronics. But I could be wrong about that.

Four Words (5, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836077)

Audio Home Recording Act:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Two Words (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836311)

Boycott Sony

Everything they produce and/or market. Literally everything... don't give them one penny of your business.

No matter how cool that gadget is that they make, no matter how strongly it might appeal to you or whatever peer pressure you feel putting on you, don't buy one.
Not even a blank CD-R disk that bears the Sony brand on its label.
That movie produced by Sony Pictures? Don't watch it.
That song released under Sony BMG or any other Sony Music label? Don't listen to it.
No matter how badly you want to smoke that piece of Sony crack, just say no.

Sony is evil, people. They've demonstrated this over and over in the past few years.
Don't fall for their shenanigans anymore.

This just in... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836089)

People who work at money grubbing labels are out of touch with reality. More at 11.

Sony BMG misses the days where they controlled all of the avenues, from start to finish, and could extort and force customer re-buys. This is the old, outdated mindset. With iTunes and digital distribution, we're finally starting to get some choice (iTunes Plus, not to mention non-legal sources)...

BMG needs to adapt or die. This laughably ignorant statement shows that it'll probably be (after many years) the latter. Piracy is easy and the music comes without restrictions (not to mention it's free. If the labels don't give consumers what they want (the music itself, how it can be obtained legally), they'll still get it. Not to mention that it completely ignores fair use [wikipedia.org].

Much more damaging (3, Insightful)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836097)

is the tendency of record companies to promote crap. The idea that Sony BMG thinks I shouldn't be allowed to commit CD's I have purchased to a library on my hard drive for convenience is outrageous. The major labels should know stealing when they see it, they have ripped off enough artists over the years.


I think it would be nice to see the record cartel shrink even more as people spend more time listening to live music or playing it themselves instead of being passive consumers of recorded music. Folks might also consider patronizing independent artists.

Re:Much more damaging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836239)

Much more damaging is the tendency of record companies to promote crap.

No kidding. How many other industries out there consider having one moneymaker out of 200 attempts to be "good"? Even the motion picture industry doesn't have such low standards for success, and everyone knows that they're pretty much crap.

This is the reason that the company that invented (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836105)

the walkman is now in just about last place in the portable audio world. Even in their native Japan Sony portable music devices are losing tons of ground to Apple, an American company. Why? Well 2 reasons:
1) Sony's love of proprietary standards and only supporting them
2) Shit like this, Sony's recording division seems to have undue influence over its hardware divisions

That means that most Sony digital music players are incredibly frustrating/expensive to use. When the market was first starting to get big for these types of devices all of Sony's offerings seemed to make it hard/impossible to copy music you got outside of their store to your device. You either had to convert to their proprietary ATRAC which was annoying or you might not be able to play it at all. They may have made things a bit better by now, but thats like closing the barn after the cow is already out.....

Memo to HR: fire yourselves (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836109)

Why would you put someone who lacks even a fundamental understanding of copyright law in charge of your litigation group?

Oh wait... is she hot?

Legal Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836115)

It would be nice if Congress would clarify this issue.

I suspect if this went to court, that a jury would find for the plaintiff. Borland, in the early days of computing earned a lot of good will with it "No Hassle" copy policy. They said you could install as many copies of their software as you wanted, so long as you could not run more than one copy at a time. I don't think the record companies are really interested in goodwill, however.

If it's wrong, Sony should give back copying levy (4, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836125)

which they've received for blank tapes and stop producing blank media suitable for copying music as a sign that they feel such actions are wrong.

William

the HEAD of litigation? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836133)

"I suppose we can say he stole a song..." (emphasis mine)

Um, Jennifer, if you're the HEAD of litigation for Sony, I think that your legal argument should be more than saying "Your Honor, I suppose we can say I win my case".

Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836139)

I think since most people don't use Sony digital music devices they consider it stealing. I had a Sony Net MD player and that this had more DRM than anything I've seen. Would have been a great device if it wasn't for the f***ing DRM. Maybe if Sony sold as many MP3 player as apple they would say something different. Well I consider charging $15 for the excrement they call music stealing.

greed knows no bounds (1)

twoboxen (1111241) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836161)

muahahahah... I love it!

"Lose music sales" due to illegal P2P sharing.
File lawsuits.
Profit.
File more lawsuits.
Profit.
Stop reasonable use such as putting purchased CD (with 13/15 songs being worthless) on mp3 player.
Profit.
Force people to repurchase songs.
PROFIT, BABY!!!

In other news, I'll never feel bad about downloading songs from major artists as long as MTV Cribs continues to demonstrate2 the poverty that those artists have to endure.

And I say: (-1, Offtopic)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836171)

Saying "Ripping CDs is Stealing" is child molesting. So would you let you tell something from a child molester?

well, if copying CD is thievery, (4, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836173)

I wonder what is their business -- they have been bribing legislators into extending copyrights, engaging in egregious copyright abuse -- RIAA-style and otherwise, price fixing, racket, swindling artists of their money; likely more than once their agents have supplied those said artists with banned substances, resulting in, among other harm, loss of creative output from the said artists, to the detriment of us all. they fail to see that it is easy to fling shit, and their shit is likely stinkier than mere copying of a CD. what is amusing is how short-sighted the MAFIAA-like institutions are to continue their crusade against the public domain in the dumbest way possible -- by accusing larger and larger groups of the said society of doing the things it has always done. hey, MAFIAA guys, i have news for you. it may be called copyright, but it ain't a right -- it is a license to a monopoly. it may go as it has come -- if you press too much, the backlash against copyright-like monopoly may come sooner and with more power than you can possibly imagine ;)

what about the ps3??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836183)

the ps3 has a spiffy little feature that lets your rip music off CDs onto the PS3 harddrive. now what do you call that? (other then a nice feature)

A case for using truecrypt (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836197)

My fear is that the juror sieve removed all but the flippant idiots in the juror pool, and this generally leads to the setting of _very_ dangerous precedents.

If ripping a CD is somehow ruled as infringement, what's next? Will I have to buy a separate CD for different brand CD players I own? Also, what about the fact that itunes doesn't carry 100% of the titles available...am I just being outright denied the legal ability to use my ipod?

Screw the RIAA and protect yourself because idiot jurors sure won't. The RIAA isn't playing fair, so neither should you. I highly suggest encrypting and hiding your collection with truecrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org) to prevent your machine from being used as evidence against you. With truecrypt you can hide a volume within a volume while providing strong plausible deniability that the internal volume even exists. If slapped with a subpoena to decrypt the volume, just decrypt the outer volume, and do keep something in there as a totally empty volume may raise suspicion. There is no way of detecting if an inner volume even exists. Just don't be stupid and leave anything pointing to the inside volume.

I need a position statement (2, Interesting)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836201)

If I'm walking down the street and I notice I have a particular tune in my head... my neural pathways have reconfigured to reproduce a copy of the music. Do I have to pay for this?

Stealing? (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836223)

when someone takes valuables out of their own home, we can say that is stealing. when someone takes a bite out of their own hamburger from McDondalds, they are stealing. When someone takes a song off a CD that THEY have purchased, they stole a song from themselves. Taking money out of the "Starving" mouths of the artists. Lets suppose that we have bought Britney Spears CD a few years back... (hypothetically speaking here)...We should continue to pay Britney Spears for that song even though she is not updating it at all or changing it at all. Where is the logic here? Once you Own a song, You should not own it just on the CD/Tape/Record... but also on your PC, on your iPod, and so on. Now I can see where there is an argument for if you want to download A single from Ms. Spears, it would only be linked to the Downloading software (iTunes, Nappster, etc.) But I see it as: if you are buying a Hard Copy of the product, you should atleast own it on your medium. Not having one for CD player, one for mp3 player, one for tape player, etc. If you can copy it to another format "FOR YOURSELF" only, you should be able to use it.

Donning tinfoil earphones ... (1)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836233)

Somewhere down the line, I see a per-play fee replacing the per-track fee. Pretty soon we'll be tracked and billed at the end of the month for our music usage. Not to be paranoid about it, of course, but every time I think I've seen the most ridiculous behavior by the recording industry they do something a little more invasive and restrictive.

Well I guess I'm guilty.... (1)

apdyck (1010443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836245)

If making a copy for personal use is illegal, and I don't use a CD player (haven't for at least five years), I guess all I can do is break the law. Demonoid (via proxy) here I come!

More unneeded bad publicity (4, Insightful)

therufus (677843) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836247)

People in the general public are starting to get sick and tired of hearing what they can and can't do with music. No wonder the rate of piracy is growing on a daily basis. When you have the chest-beating RIAA and it's affiliates telling people they should pay more and more for music (which is substandard these days IMHO, but thats another topic), people are more likely to look for other resources to acquire the music they want. I believe it's starting to turn into the 'path of least resistance' theory, relative to spending money on music. If you keep jacking prices up, telling people they can't use their purchased item the way they want to and blame it on illegal file sharing software, people are going to start using the illegal file sharing software due to the fact they can't afford the product anymore.

Can you imagine if you were to use the metaphor of eating. If you hunger for food, and buy food to eat, you will eat it when you want. If you were suddenly told that you could only eat during certain hours and couldn't share your food with others who can't afford to eat, you wouldn't be to happy. Suddenly, there is a place where they stole the same seeds (metaphorically speaking) to make the same food but they gave it away for free. The people you used to buy the food off would go out of business right? So they try to bend the laws and make new ones to protect something that should be free (or at least paid back to the farmers) from the thieves.

Here is the problem with that analogy. The farmers work hard to make the food we eat, but they get paid tiny amounts of money for their goods. The store puts a huge markup on it and rips off the consumer.

Do you see the pattern?

If the RIAA, BMG, SONY, UMG, EMI, etc keep on proclaiming to the masses that they own the music, they will be killed off like the dinosaurs they are.

I certainly hope I stayed on topic for that.

Time for a lie down methinks.

Copying is besides the issue (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836263)

Sony should not really focus or speak up on copying. Copying is moot nowadays as the properties are not physical, but intellectual. A computer may copy a song as soon as you transfer something bought on iTunes to your iPod. Should that be an illegal action? Of course not! But still, you did, indeed, copy a file you had downloaded. Is there a difference here in what one might do with a CD? No, because in both cases, you make another copy of the product for playing in e.g. a mobile device.

The only straw that's left for Sony to grasp at is not about copying, but about breaching licenses. But that would seem to apply more to DRM'ed material to me, than physical CD's. You do click through a license agreement when installing iTunes and there is also the DMCA to disallow decrypting DRM protected media. But what about CD's? I don't enter even something as little as a click through contract, and neither do I need to (normally, thank god) decrypt a CD to rip its content.

This Sony rep may "suppose" whatever he wish, but that's to me merely his opinion, not law or anything. If it's considered fair use to play a single intellectual property for own use on your own devices (and I can't really see how it could possibly be anything but that), then this should be OK. Let's not involve the copying part so much, because a computer copies files a lot, even sometimes when you don't know it or it's not 100% apparent to the user, or not necessarily a user initiated action. It copies a lot of things to RAM too, which is quite literally transfering material from your hard drive to another hardware device.

Involving copying will just make matters more complex to sort out and understand for their customers and is, besides, quite irrelevant. Who cares how many copies you make and to where? IMHO, what only matters is whether you breach a contract. And in that case, I can only agree with them that the copyright infringement here is if it's causing a financial loss to the copyright holder.

But then -- that would mean that, in this case, Sony would need to honestly believe an artist lose money on someone who carries an owned CD to the car stereo, which is quite crazy. Since that also means a user isn't purchasing two copies for playing it on another device.

Cognitive dissonance, resolved. (5, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836281)

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 generally pay for my music. I won't claim that I own a CD for every song in my collection, but easily over 99% of them. I buy most of them used for a pittance, and rip them to my file server. I do not use P2P programs, or download from any of the massive music archives, or USE the NET to easily find anything I might ever what to listen to, or even copy (and keep) tracks from friends. I do this because I, as do most people, prefer to stay legal. I consider myself reasonable on that... Sony provides something I want, I provide them with the only thing they want.

So when Sony comes out and makes statements like this, calling me a thief for using the music I buy in the way I prefer, it makes me unhappy. This leads to a certain level of cognitive dissonance on my part - I want to engage in a fair trade of goods for money, but the other party considers my terms a form of robbery.

As I will not change my current behavior for the sake of making Sony feel better, nor will I give up the pleasure of listening to music that happens to fall under their control, they have effectively removed my mental barrier to "stealing" their entire catalog.

Congrats, Sony, you have made it clear you consider the two actions - Buying and stealing - equivalent. Thus, I feel no moral dilemma in seeking out and downloading every song you've ever published. You consider that the same as my buying them, so why would I actually pay for them? By simply downloading them all, you view me the same, yet I save thousands of dollars. Thank you, Sony, for making this so much easier!

Re:Cognitive dissonance, resolved. (4, Funny)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836315)

I generally pay for my music.
Shame on you. Buying music is the same as supporting terrorists.

Lets not tell them... (1)

GrayCalx (597428) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836283)

I guess somebody should tell Sony about all the devices Sony produces that allow this stealing to occur!

Ehhh maybe we shouldn't tell them.

First thing in the morning (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20836299)

I swear, things like this are posted just to get us all pissed-off first thing in the morning. It's like their business model changed from something good to:
1. Tell the masses that everything they know is wrong.
2. ????
3. PROFIT!

...Leave lawyers alone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20836329)

How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of lawyers after all they have been through?

They get paid too little to lie. Sony threatened to fire. She had to cash a check in disguise.

Her husband divorced her for a piranha for a loving relationship. All you people care about is music and its quality.

It's a corporation! What you don't realize is that lawyers are keep these local CD stores in check.

I haven't bought anything really expensive in years. We're called lawyers for a reason because all you people want is YERS! YERS! YERS! taken off your sentence.

LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even allows products to circulate you bastards! LEAVE LAWYERS ALONE!

Please!

Slashdot talked about Sony and said if a business wasn't corrupt they wouldn't put root kits on your CDs.

Speaking of corrupt, when is it ethical to publicly bash a company who has so many root kits?

Leave lawyers alone, please.

LEAVE LAWYERS ALONE RIGHT NOW. I MEAN IT.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...