After Hours

BMG's chief lawyer declares that making a copy of your own CD is stealing

Ars Technica, which is covering the first actual trial pitting the RIAA against a supposed file-sharing, has a report on the opinion of Jennifer Pariser pertaining to the topic of fair use. Pariser is the head of litigation for Sony BMG and was called to the stand to testify.

Ars Technica, which is covering the first actual trial pitting the RIAA against a supposed file-sharing, has a report on the opinion of Jennifer Pariser pertaining to the topic of fair use. Pariser is the head of litigation for Sony BMG and was called to the stand to testify.

According to Ars, Pariser has a very broad definition of "stealing." When questioned, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft, including ripping your own CDs or downloading songs that you already own.

Excerpt from the article:

Gabriel [Lead counsel for the record labels] asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "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'," she said

I guess that means everyone in Singapore seen with an iPod is a thief then. Since the iTunes Music Store is not available here, they must at the minimum be guilty of ripping their own CDs.

What is your opinion of fair use and copyright where music is concerned? Is the current legal situation in dire need of a complete revamp?

About

Paul Mah is a writer and blogger who lives in Singapore, where he has worked for a number of years in various capacities within the IT industry. Paul enjoys tinkering with tech gadgets, smartphones, and networking devices.

96 comments
SQL_Joe
SQL_Joe

Gee whiz. If you make a copy for personal use, it's no big deal. If you give away copies so that more than one person can PLAY it at a time, that's stealing. If I give to my family, then they don't have to buy it - if I give to my friends then they don't have to buy it. Where do we draw the line? I make a copy to protect my investment, or to listen on my electronic device. I bought it for my personal use and all copies are for my personal use. As soon as that use is no longer for my personal use, or is for my personal use AND another's personal use, then I am stealing. As for playing the CD on my business loudspeaker. I believe that the purchasing agreement on the CD itself specifically prohibits public broadcasting. George

ojeda
ojeda

that's why i steal other people's CDs, copy them, and leave piles of them in sleeves at busstops for busriders - power to the people - stick it to the man how about a guarantee that i can another copy if i break my copy for say $0.50, cost of material - i did buy the rights - also, since i own the rights, how about replacing all my LPs and cassettes with CDs, since i own the rights? for $0.50 each - cost of material

rmgangawer
rmgangawer

This is easy to resolve. Nobody buys anything commercial for a few months. Ditto for concerts at $200 a pop. No money for lawyers, no money for politicians, no money for executives,... Sorry to the artists? No! They signed on for the ride, they took, and spent, the advance checks, hope they put some of that cash aside. They exist because we want them to. They have no "right" to anything. It's called discretionary spending, so let's all exercise some "discretion" and see how long they can hold out with no income!

wrlang
wrlang

I remember many years ago when hifi tape recorders came out, then combination radio and cassette tape players that could record off the radio. There was a hoopla over those and for a time those devices were banned. Same thing happened when dual tape players came out with two cassettes in one unit; they made them so they couldn't dub one cassette to another. VHS and DVD combo units that can't record DVD content onto VHS. Yes, the music and video industries are bloated thieves and the "intellectual property" is an oxymoron since the content rarely bears any resemblance to anything intellectual ??? its entertainment. Next they will want you to pay them every time you sing a song that's in your head and IP laws will be passed to prevent people from memorizing lyrics or recognizing films. After all, your brain is your own personal recording device. I bought the CD or DVD. The plastic and everything on it is mine to do with as I please. The only exception is to make money off of it. I'll give them that. But if I want a couple backup copies of my favorite entertainment, or a copy for each car and one for each room with a cd/dvd unit, that's my business and no one gets any more money out of me for that. The pitiful wretches can kiss/sue my butt.

DadsPad
DadsPad

It is hard to believe that any sane person would expect a parent to give a $25 DVD to a child to use in a DVD player and not expect the DVD to be damaged beyond use quickly. We would make a copy of the DVD and save the original so the child can view their favorite DVD without extra expense. Presently the music industry is going after those that use a computer to share music of the internet without paying any royalties. In the first such trial to go to court, Jammie Thomas of Minnesota, lost her case and is ordered to pay $222,000 in damages for music loaded on her pc and shared via Kazaa. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml The music industry touting this as a major victory that their position is supported by the courts.

lexicon59
lexicon59

They won today, but as everyone here's mentioned, the tide against the RIAA is heavily against them. This is why we need an overhaul of copyright. Hopefully from a bipartisan group of judges & legal experts that'll take the original intent of the copyright act and move us forward and acknowledge "fair use."

Inkling
Inkling

First, this lawyer is an idiot as far as I'm concerned. She is, however, only doing the job she's paid to do. Don't shoot the messenger. Now...as far as the music industry's woes and the fact that we are supposed to feel sorry for them and ashamed of ourselves for "stealing" music: A correction is occuring in our free market society. Before recent technologies, the music and movie industries had a captive audience. They used that fact to extort every single penny they could out of us; making a lot of people VERY rich in the process. They also made the industry far too bloated. Is it sad that people in the music industry are losing their jobs? Sure, I hate to see anyone in that situation (unless it is self-afflicted). The thing is, it isn't the consumer's fault for seeking other means of getting what they want. It is a symptom of a far too greedy music industry (musicians included for the most part). The only people I truly feel sorry for in this whole deal are the true fans of music because until they start figuring out new ways of getting their stuff out, new bands aren't going to be heard. Until the music industry stops over-charging (and I mean from top to bottom...from the CD manufacturers to the recording studios, to the agents, to the musicians, etc...), people will find ways to [b]not[/b] pay the exorbitant sums they want.

DadsPad
DadsPad

truth of the matter stated here. The music industry is fighting a revolution they cannot control. The same has happened in other industries. The CAD design system put a lot of people out of work. The modern printing press did the same to another industry. We can now take digital pictures and print them ourselves. Kodak had to re-invent themselves to survive. The music industry and Sony's BMG division needs to do the same thing or they will be history. Edited for clarity & spelling

Inkling
Inkling

but I just can't understand why the powers that be in the music industry don't understand this. All they are accomplishing with their current tactics is to alienate the people that put the food on their table. Ultimately, I think they are doing us a far larger service in the long run. They are, with their strong-arm tactics, bringing about a [b]much[/b] needed change in the way consumers think. I've got my fingers crossed that this will begin a consumer revolution across the board!

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

Trying to do my part. I don't use BMG anymore, and I just started consulting www.riaaradar.com so as to avoid buying music from RIAA affiliated bands. I was pretty bummed the other day when 4 of the 5 CD's I was wanting to purchase were on the list. I am a music addict. Not easy for me to pass them up. Oh well, more money for the house payment I guess...

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

The consumer, like the voter, can have all the power, if they simply use it.

Inkling
Inkling

I agree with you. Consumers need to wake up and smell the crap we're being fed. The music industry is one case where I think we actually are waking up and taking a stand. I think this thread ties in very well with the iPhone thread about Apple being too controlling. If you stop to think about it, this complacency that is so prevalent in our attitudes as consumers is at the root of all of our problems as a society.

Media-Ted@Juno.com
Media-Ted@Juno.com

... that bullies are renewed - from scratch - every generation. Since they are bullies, they are, ... well, like everyone else, ignorant. It's just that bullies never intend to learn. They simply rely on bullying tactics to get what they want until they die. That's why God created death; it's the only "reason" bullies have to stop what they do. Corporations, government, police, the AMA, and other "power" things attract bullies like dung attracts flies. The obsessive desire of each generation of those who do learn to wish that bullies also learn from their mistakes, or those of previous generations, simply never happens. The RIAA, once a group of engineers and learned audiophiles, was taken over by a bunch of money-grabbing lawyers and bullies, ... fueled, of course, by "investors". (Ever stop to consider the god-like qualities accorded to "investors"? Chilling, isn't it?) Anyway, the RIAA served a purpose at one time - to help recording companies produce and distribute the finest quality sound it could. Now, with digital - no generational loss - reproduction, sound may be copied to infinity and beyond. The job being mostly completed, the RIAA is now just another arm of the bullies to force people to pay up for anything. To them, anything they can imagine to make profit, with the addition of force from a government and its courts which they bought decades ago, is the way of the future. The important point is not: when will THEY learn, but: when will the rest of us learn?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...declares that as he sees it, anything anybody does to their product beyond just purchasing it constitutes "stealing", and therefore they should have the right to use the legal system to whatever extreme they deem "reasonable" to attack consumers for cause and at will. Or, in other words, "fair use" doesn't really exist in any form and their "rights" superseede all others? I do hope there were at least some chuckles in the courtroom. Could this be any more of a non-story?

LordNyghthawk
LordNyghthawk

...because it shows how the recording industry wishes to have "their" rights upheld and expanded, but the average joe's rights aren't important, and thus, should be taken away from them. The sad part is, the way things are going, that's exactly what will happen.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...because: A) The recording industry has been at this nonsense for over 30 years. This argument is hardly a surprise reveal of their agenda or character. A real story might be of a recording industry lawyer making a statment even acknowleging the existence of "fair use". B) Lawyers representing clients propose proposterous legal theories every single day. Most are given the attention they deserve. But they still do it because every so often, a clueless or agendized court listens.

WoW > Work
WoW > Work

"It's my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000," [Pariser] said, thanks to piracy. Is there any proof of this? What's next, having to buy a song twice because I have 2 ears?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

if you lose your hearing, do you get a refund?

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

you could get your money back off the next Take That CD by driving a knitting needle through your eardrums. Some might call that self inflicted, but you wouldn't have contemplated it if you hadn't listened to it in the first place....

DadsPad
DadsPad

It doesn't matter, the music industry just smells money and decided to enforce their views.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

to provide an interpreter to sign the words... Maybe the ADA should get in on this :)

peterlamonica
peterlamonica

Wait just a second here. Sounds like Sony is setting up a line in the sand. If I PURCHASE a song from an online store, then place it onto a player or onto a SD chip so I can play it that is theft according to her. By her description there is no way to get a song onto a device. The file is copied from the store onto a PC then transfered (or copied). One might even say it is altered since some times the format needs to be changed. Someone better tell i-Tunes they are aiding in a theft ring.

oldstuff
oldstuff

Just the answer I would expect from a bottom feeding scum lawyer. You bought the CD it is yours. If you want to make a copy for your own use it is none of there business.

conspicuouschick
conspicuouschick

A lawyer for BMG has absolutely NO excuse for being ignorant of Fair Use, which is a component of copyright law - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. Language in the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision suggests a broader reading of the Section 1008 exemptions, providing blanket protection for "all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" and equating the spaceshifting of audio with the fair use protections afforded home video recordings in Sony v. Universal Studios.

Canuckster
Canuckster

I wonder if the suits at Sony consider it "stealing one copy" if I legitimately purchase a song on the internet, download it to my PC and then make a back up of my files. Or if I download it to my PC and then move it to my newly purchased laptop. Anyone know? I wonder if the suits just want to create some form of built-in obsolescence for their products so that consumers will purchase the same music on multiple occassions.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

The RIAA doesn?t believe that fair use exists. In fact, they?re trying to get Congress to agree with them. Votes no longer count, only money does.

stormculture
stormculture

Right - they need to codify all of this. Companies are putting out license agreements that say anything and everything, and here BMG is determining a highly questionable reinterpretation of (anti) fair-use. Consumer right need to be codified and the companies need to stay out of it completely. Some suggestions: 1. I should only have to pay MS (or whoever) for one workstation license - and I can use it anywhere. Same for applications. (Servers are a separate issue, of course) 2. If you aquire a piece of media, you can convert the media to any format you wish. You can even share copies with people you know personally. You just can't make it publically available. 3. If you check something out from a library, you can make personal copies of it (books or electronic media). - That last one presents a problem (for media companies) for CDs and DVDs that are in libraries. Frankly, I think it's sensible to say that copyrights, particularly on electronic media, should no longer have lifetime longevity. Rather, they should expire or drastically diminish after just a few years - 5 or 10. Will that mean that musician's contracts will have a bit less value? Sure. But does Mariah Carey really deserve $20 million for what she does, simply to preserve a legally protected monopoly that stifles the sharing of culture? Frankly, I think we're a lot better off allowing the virtual free dissemination of all media throughout society after an initial "get paid" period. And "stars" should be paid (and encouraged) to work, not live idly off the royalties of one catchy tune. The government wants to encourage (or mandate) all sorts of other "healthy" habits in the population, why not force the "stars" to have to work for a living, like the rest of us? (ie: do live-shows rather than live off cd sales...)

DanLM
DanLM

Some of the original blues singers that really never made any money on their copyrighted material. Now new bands are redoing their songs? Or their cd's are just now starting to sell. Is the words, notes, and music still considered copyrighted? Or do these older musicians who are just now seeing their glory screwed again? They were never paid fair market value in the beginning and now they have no chance to accumulate some of that value now? And no, it's mot the consumers fault. On the flip side of that. One of the reasons they are probably more marketable now is because of the very wide availability of different styles of music via the internet and different delivery formats. But, again. Shouldn't they have the chance to accumulate some of the wealth that they were denied in the beginning? I guess I can take this a step further. What about new bands that are starting now that have a style of sound that currently isn't popular. Further along in their years, it does become popular. They never made money in the beginning but have a chance to do it now. Under what you suggest they couldn't. No, am I am not trying to be flippant. Just trying to look at it from beginning to end. Dan

Cactus Pete
Cactus Pete

This is why we should be aware of the differences between consumer use and for-profit use.

Think180
Think180

To Cactus Pete - a long, long time ago, I sent a message across the universe, in relation to an avatar. Since then I posted a retraction. In the initial personal message, I was pretty darn critical (overly so), based on a misinterpretation of the intent and meaning of the avatar. Not sure if you got that retarction from the bottom of the old thread. But the net of it is that I had not recognized the looping clip from the copier scene in Office Space. It put your avatar in a whole different light. I have watched Office Space many times (even before it become popular). My two fave scenes are the unscrewing of the cube walls, and the debate over the minimum number of items of flair. Hope you accept this retraction in the genuine spirit of me saying I was out of line. JimG

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

My daughter plays a musical instrument in her school band. We were told not to copy any of her music sheets as it was illegal. We wanted her to practice over the summer but she had to turn them in or we had to pay for them. I know of someone that was in a play and they ran into the same issue - it was illegal to make copies of the book. I was told that it's like that for just about all plays. Some of the music and plays mentioned above are from people long dead so why is this stuff not free and clear? Example: I invent a new kind of "gadget" and I patent it. Several years later, I forget how many, anyone can build that gadget and I don't get any royalties. Why is the music/movie/theater industries different? They need to update the "play book" (no pun intended) and play by fair rules in my opinion. EMD

oldjags
oldjags

You own a restaurant. You hire a band to play on Saturday night. The band plays it's own original songs, not songs written by someone else. Two weeks later you get a letter from ASCAP,the recording artist's union, saying you've violated copyright laws by playing music without a license. Pay hundreds of dollars for a license or we'll see you in court. If you're a business with 'music on hold' on your phone system, you also have to pay a license fee, even if you're just using the local radio station as your source. The only free music you can play is music that's in the public domain. Most classical music, and anything more than 100 years old is royalty-free. Everything else you gotta pay for.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

it's an issue with the publisher of the printed material, not the author of the song. For example, I can create a compilation from public domain and legally copyright the compilation. Gadgets are a little different, because different people can and do come up with the same ideas on their own, and it's not illegal to use your own ideas. What they cannot do, if you have the patent, is build them commercially without a royalty agreement. This has sunk many an entrepreneur who had a great idea and went to make money on it, only to have failed to research and discover he'd stepped on someone else's patent.

dnox1978
dnox1978

Not in sweaden we pay a fee for every blank cd and old caset that goes to the music industri eaven for my photos and my own cam movies of friends and so one, by law i can make 1 copy of music cd, movie and so one, but if it copy protected i can't make a copy but i still have to pay the fe to the music industri,,,

conspicuouschick
conspicuouschick

In USA there is a tax on every cassette tape, CD, VHS cassette and DVD-R as well. This began in the 80's after the "Sony" case, where hollywood tried to outlaw the VCR.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

The "industry" has been trying to impliment various forms of the "tape tax" for over 30 years. I think the only time they were successful was with the DAT (digital audio tape) format from the mid '80s, which effectively killed the format for consumer useage. (Ironically enough, almost all DAT usage today is for computer backup; so I suppose the IT industry is effectively subsidizing the music industry) Personally, I find such "guilty by implication" taxes offensive; Just by purchasing a DAT, legally I am being accused to being a pirate. My moral take on this is that should such a tax ever sucessfully be implimented upon digital media in general, I shall NEVER EVER purchase music, movies, or whatever again. Instead, I will find alternate free sources for it because I have already supposedly "paid" for it through the taxes that I'll be paying via purchasing blank media.

rgetsla
rgetsla

Back when Sony was being sued by the MPAA, the decision to allow home recording for personal use went in Sony's favor, making home recording legal. Not long after that, the movie studios were making more money from the sale of videocassettes that would play on the home VCRs they tried to ban, than they made from their theatrical releases of the same movies. If the MPAA had won, they would have missed what became a huge revenue stream for them from selling prerecorded tapes of movies to people with VCRs. I am surprised the MPAA/RIAA folks haven't learned from their own experience. These folks need a clue!

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...the moment it changed from being a "consumer electronics" company to being a "media" company. And I agree that they have yet to learn the big lesson: If their product was priced much cheaper, they'd eliminate the incentive for piracy and in the end make far more money.

michael.tindall
michael.tindall

Hey, if state governments can retroactively sue a smoker for YEARS worth of back sales-tax on cigarettes bought online, why not sue us all for copyright violations, dating back from the invention of the cassette recorder? It's apparently an easier way to make money than to create music that is worth buying.....

meanoldmom
meanoldmom

Better make that back to the retail availability of reel-to-reel tape recorder/players. We old fogeys used those with our stereo systems prior to the popularity of cassettes and 8-tracks.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

In most states the law is very clear. If you purchase a new item that is taxable in the state where you live (no matter where you buy it), you must pay your state's sales tax on it. If you paid tax in the state where you bought it, you are usually allowed to deduct that from your tax owed. Many people don't pay sales tax on items bought online or through the mail from another state. If they do not pay their state's sales tax on those items, they are breaking the law. There's nothing retroactive about it. The laws have been on the books for decades.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

(which they won't be) the people violating it are still violating it. A good way to increase the drama in your life is to continue to ignore laws you don't agree with. [i]Also, mail order purchases are explicitly excluded from taxes (per law), regardless of the constitutionality issue.[/i] You are quite wrong. The store simply is not required to [b]collect[/b] taxes for sales shipped out of their home state (which would be unreasonable). The tax still must be [b]paid[/b], and guess by whom!

$dunk$
$dunk$

[i]Many people don't pay sales tax on items bought online or through the mail from another state. If they do not pay their state's sales tax on those items, they are breaking the law. There's nothing retroactive about it. The laws have been on the books for decades[/i] The laws may be on the books but they are very unconstitutional. Thus, it is a matter of opinion as to whether these people are breaking the law. Also, mail order purchases are explicitly excluded from taxes (per law), regardless of the constitutionality issue. The states have tried to get around this by adding clauses, such as if the selling company has any holdings in the buyer's state then it counts as an intra-state transaction and not an inter-state transaction. Thereby, allowing them to legally collect the sales tax.

DanLM
DanLM

.

DanLM
DanLM

After my root canal today. ;o( Where the RIAA had stopped guitar shops from allowing people looking to buy a guitar playing various songs. Remember smoke on the water? Almost all new guitar players know that song, and that is something that most would strum as they checked out a guitar. The RIAA gave the guitar shops crap over allowing that to happen. The article I read was talking about live groups at bars, coffee shops and such and comparing this strumming of smoke on the water to that. How far of a leap is it from strumming smoke on the water on a guitar(no matter where it is at) to singing a song to yourself? I think I seen this on MSNBC, but I'm not sure. Dan

biggriggpigg
biggriggpigg

If I am driving in my car listening to a CD and singing along with the music, word for word, am I stealing or illegally reproducing this CD? How can BMG ever get past this question?

Joe_R
Joe_R

Back in the golden era of the vinyl record, especially when audio technology progressed to include the development and popularity of cassette tape, it was common practice to record music from one's vinyl record onto cassette tape, and we'd listen to the tape, not the record. The advantages were many, including the protection of a more fragile vinyl record, which was prone to scratches and warping from overuse, and it also allowed a person to listen to his music in his car. I don't recall much talk about the practice being illegal back then, and there was no statement printed on the vinyl record cover prohibiting such recording, so I have to wonder when things changed. If a person buys a piece of music, regardless of the media on which it's delivered, it seems perfectly reasonable for that person to be able to use it however he sees fit. There's another discussion going on about transferring music from vinyl records to digital form, and the legality of doing so isn't really in question, nor has it ever been. If it's being done to give away (or sell) to others, that's another matter entirely. But for one's own personal use, to suggest the purchaser can't copy the contents to another form is silly. If it is illegal, and if the recording industry is trying to restrict such use, then they aren't doing themselves any favors. If a person purchases and downloads music onto a computer hard drive, are they suggesting it's illegal to copy that digital data onto a CD? Isn't it always recommended to back-up one's data? The recording industry should probably clearly state that if a person buys a piece of music, it may be used in any form by the original purchaser, but is not to be copied for redistribution. That seems like a more reasonable approach to me. (The material in this message may be copied in any form for one's personal use, but may not be used for redistribution.)

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]I don't recall much talk about the practice being illegal back then, and there was no statement printed on the vinyl record cover prohibiting such recording, so I have to wonder when things changed.[/i] ... any changes can legally be enforced retro-actively to previously purchased music.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

At one time part of the price of a blank cassette included a fee that was returned to the record companies. That way you could record your LP, they'd get their cut, and everybody was happy. Obviously this could be done with the sale of blank CDs and DVDs (if it isn't already being done). I don't download music or extract it from CDs, but if copying an LP to a cassette is a copyright violation, I'm declaring here and now that I'm guilty of more crimes than a Kazaa user with a T1 connection.

paj1130
paj1130

Okay, okay! So my take on all this hoopla is and has always been this. Regardless of what format I purchase the media in, I own the media. I paid for it! I do not have the right to say the song, movie whatever was written, produced or performed by me but I own the audio / visual content COPY. It is a copy that I purchased, right? So are the artists and record companies stealing from each other and themselves?????? Oh that gets way too confusing, totally mindboggling. I do not have the right to use that content in or as part of any original work I may produce or perform without the permission (payment) to the original author / agent etc.... But i certainly paid for the right to listen to that content whenever and where ever I choose. FYI, I have bought content in all forms of media and several of the same content in different forms of media. I try to back all of my media up just n case someone decides to break into my car / house etc... and steal it (not copy it) from me. I have over 10000 vinyl records I plan to archove to a hard drive to back up before they are all ruined or worn out, so I suppose I am really not going to be liked by the RIAA. Maybe I should just quit buying the content I want now??

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I'm guessing it's also done with DVD blanks. I remember a few years back the price of a blank CD started to jump. The reason given was to include a "piracy tax" on blank media which is turned over to RIAA.

Joe_R
Joe_R

I'll join you in the slammer. But when I bought my LPs, there was no such restriction, either stated or implied.

marshlands
marshlands

I seem to remember many of my records came with inner sleeves emblazoned with the legend, "Home Taping is Killing Music" along with a skull and crossbones logo. This argument goes back over 30 years. Record production companies seem to have selective moral response. Don't they try to cash in every time a new music recording format is produced? I find it a questionable practice to expect me to shell out yet again for my favourite recordings just because this month someone has invented blueminidigitalcompactmicro8trackvinylcassettedatmp3. As a working musician I'd like people to listen to my recordings, but as long as they buy a copy first and don't pass them around freely they can listen to my music in whatever form they like. A record company that has to finance the production of the new media may have a different view I suppose.

seanferd
seanferd

was a British thing in the 1980s, and much lampooned. I cannot personally claim to have seen it on the inner protective sleeve of a record, though. The recording industry did boo-hoo the advent of reel-to-reel, 8-track, and cassette for consumers. As to cassettes, Sony was one company who also provided high quality media for taping music. Same goes for CDR today. Go figure.

Joe_R
Joe_R

Okay, how many people are digging through their old vinyl records looking for such a statement? I looked at a random sampling of mine, dated from 1955 to 1985, and I found no such statement on any of them. Here are the ones I looked at: (Artist - Label) James Newton - Blue Note Fleetwood Mac - Reprise Tom Lehrer - Lehrer Bill Haley and the Comets - Decca Rolling Stones - London Charlie Parker - Blue Note Michael Franks - Warner Brothers Allman Brothers - Atco Paul McCartney and Wings - Capital JJ Cale - MCA The Doors - Elektra Miles Davis - Columbia Uriah Heap - Mercury Dire Straits - Warner Brothers They all have the standard dated copyright stamp, of course, but nothing about making copies, either for personal use or otherwise, inner sleve or the outer cover. I quit buying records in the 1980s, so perhaps the later ones did have something. The only RAII comment I saw was one that said, "This record has been engineered and manufactured in accordance with standards developed by the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., a non-profit orginanization dedicated to the betterment of recorded music and literature."

marshlands
marshlands

Hi Joseph, your comments made me waver for the length of time it took to find the first vinyl album I managed to pull off the shelf. Jimi Hendrix "The Cry of Love/War Heroes" double package. White inner sleeve, "Home taping is killing music" with an anthropomorphised silhouette of a cassette under the headline and underneath that 2 crossed bones with "and it's illegal" written under the bones. Maybe this campaign was exclusively British? Most records before and after carried a message from The Phonographic Performance Ltd stating that "Copyright exists in this recording. Unauthorised copying, re-recording, broadcasting or public performance in whatsoever manner is strictly prohibited ...etc" Seems the industry was clear about the position it was taking in the UK in 1971.

Media-Ted@Juno.com
Media-Ted@Juno.com

... bakalite 78rpm's, you will find "license agreements/prohibitions" on the little round labels and on the paper sleeves. Back then there was a lot of pressure to make the listener know and understand that they did not "own" the recording; they "owned" the platter, but not its contents. Once producer/distributors saw the benefit of their recordings being played on radio stations, they dropped the exclusive, pushy crap and embraced the wider exposure. In fact, if you're old enough, you may remember the days of "Payola", or the playing of recordings (note, I do not call these "records" - the combination of plater and content -, but recordings - the content.) which amounted to advertisements for such things as, ... oh, let's see, "Fun, Fun, Fun, 'til her daddy took the T_Bird Away"; or "Giddy Up, Giddy Up, 409 (Chevy)", or "GTO (Pontiac)"; "Beep Beep (Nash Rambler). Need I go on? Money is the root by which all sales-dudes and sales-Suits exist. To them everything is wrong unless they sell it. EOL

Tig2
Tig2

Joseph, willing to trade much for Tom Leher. Can we bargain??? I could sing "National Brotherhood Week" and follow with the "Periodic Table of the Elements" ending with "Gustav, Walter and Franz" but I recognise that I am not a singer and never will be. How can I get a copy of this brilliant performer? I have Red Dwarf and Black Adder...

Tig2
Tig2

Here we are having a good time being irrational and here you come making sense. Sheesh! What if I want to redistribute your sensible words? They ARE on the intraweb, you know. I can copy and paste with the best of them. The offensive assumption is that if I buy something or even hear something, I must continually pay someone's meter. And if I fail to do so, I am a thief. I am not asking for something for nothing. I just want to be able to utilize what I own without the risk of being labeled offensively. End of the day? I don't think we have the first clue how to manage all of the content that is out there. It's time to shift the paradigm, people. Hopefully, we'll use a clutch this time.