throbber
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
`
`Become a Contract Manager
`contractmanagement.courses-vuo.com
`Prepare For NCMA Certification. Convenient Courses, 100% Online.
`
`
`
`washingtonpost.com > Arts & Living > Music
`
`CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE
`A Dec. 30 Style & Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry "maintains that it is illegal for someone who has
`legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer." In a copyright-infringement lawsuit, the industry's lawyer
`argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant, were illegal because the songs were located in a "shared folder"
`on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network.
`
`THE LISTENER
`Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
`By Marc Fisher
`Washington Post Staff Writer
`Sunday, December 30, 2007
`
`» FOLLOW MUSIC ON:
`
`
`
`Music
`Production
`Career
`tfa.edu
`
`Enter The World Of
`Media Arts At Tribeca
`Flashpoint. Apply
`Today!
`
`Network News
`
`PROFILE
`
`X
`
`Network News
`
`MY PROFILE
`
`X
`
`View More Activity
`
`View More Activity
`
`Friends' Activity
`
`TOOLBOX
`Print
`Reprints
`
` Resize
`E-mail
`
`Sponsored Links
`
`Invest in FTTN
`A New Era Is Emerging In Energy
`Markets & FTTN is ahead of the curve!
`
`Travel Guard® Insurance
`20+ Years of Travel Experience!
`Coverage Starting at $30.
`
` Buy a link here
`
`Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits
`filed against music fans in the years
`since they started finding free tunes
`online rather than buying CDs from
`record companies, the recording
`industry has utterly failed to halt the
`decline of the record album or the
`rise of digital music sharing.
`
`Still, hardly a month goes by without
`a news release from the industry's
`lobby, the Recording Industry
`Association of America, touting a
`new wave of letters to college
`students and others demanding a
`settlement payment and threatening
`a legal battle.
`
`Now, in an unusual case in which an
`Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter
`has fought back in court rather than
`write a check to avoid hefty legal
`fees, the industry is taking its argument against music
`sharing one step further: In legal documents in its
`federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale,
`Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music
`recordings on his personal computer, the industry
`maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally
`purchased a CD to transfer that music into his
`computer.
`
`The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues
`in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files
`Howell made on his computer from legally bought
`CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted
`recordings.
`
`"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray
`Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six
`clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic
`principle in the law is that you have to distribute
`actual physical copies to be guilty of violating
`
`http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html[3/18/2014 3:06:38 PM]
`
`
`
`Apple Exhibit 4402
`Apple v Sightsound Technologies
`CBM2013-00023
`Page 00001
`
`

`
`Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
`
`copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal
`copy on your computer is a violation."
`
`RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its
`Web site says: "If you make unauthorized
`copies of copyrighted music recordings,
`you're stealing. You're breaking the law and
`you could be held legally liable for
`thousands of dollars in damages."
`
`They're not kidding. In October, after a trial
`in Minnesota -- the first time the industry
`has made its case before a federal jury --
`Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay
`$220,000 to the big record companies.
`That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was
`
`accused of sharing online.
`
`Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart
`of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's
`own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately
`may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give
`away the music or lend it to anyone.
`
`Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times
`poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they
`own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of
`current college students download music and movies illegally.
`
`The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal
`copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony
`BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a
`copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you
`bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.
`
`But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that
`found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift
`TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a
`legally obtained recording.
`
`As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation
`that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media:
`That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and
`magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new
`business models and new, compelling content to offer.
`
`The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media
`company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy
`has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent
`goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem
`they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."
`
`The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of
`warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first
`choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the
`law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.
`
`Sponsored Links
`Invest in FTTN
`A New Era Is Emerging In Energy Markets & FTTN is ahead of the curve!
`www.firsttitanenergy.com
`
`http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html[3/18/2014 3:06:38 PM]
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
`
`Travel Guard® Insurance
`20+ Years of Travel Experience! Coverage Starting at $30.
`www.travelguard.com/International
`
`American Express Travel
`Explore Great Travel Offers When Booking With American Express.
`americanexpress.com/Travel
`
`© 2007 The Washington Post Company
`
` Buy a link here
`
`http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html[3/18/2014 3:06:38 PM]
`
`Page 00003

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket