Ms. Pariser sure puts the 'fair' in fair use.

Hello fair use!

Her reply, and then mine to that:

Jennifer:
Thank you for your lovely note. I believe I testified that downloading a CD from Kazaa is illegal, not that ripping a copy of a CD you own for your personal use.
--
Me:
Just to refresh your memory:

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'.

--Nick

(She is Out of the Office today, btw.) jennifer.pariser@sonybmg.com

If copying a song from a CD you own to your own personal computer or MP3 player is stealing, what are the labels doing when they print "promotional" CDs that they SELL to customers via the "Buy 1 Get 8 Free" BMG et all mail distribution, then CHARGE THE ARTISTS for the cost of the "promo" CDs that they SOLD?

The comments on this one are going to be great, I can tell already.

Anyhow, I'd be curious to know if she thinks that "MP3" is synonymous with "piracy."

@nickripley My first post didn't come through:
Jennifer,

I hear you are a lawyer, but you honestly believe ripping a CD for listening on a digital device is stealing? You aren't much of a lawyer if you aren't familiar with the Home Taping Act.... (You know... like the Sony SonicStage software does with it's mp3 ripping... that product your company distributes.)

Wikipedia has a nice summary if you wanna stop being a c*** for a minute and read it: [en.wikipedia.org]

It's people like you that are destroying the music business. I own several Sony MiniDisc recorders, even the latest RZH-1, and I will not ever buy another Sony product as long as your company takes such stupid, unlawful positions. Seriously, just because you are a complete corporate schill does not mean you can go around deciding the law.

Have a good day!

I can't express in words how thrilled I am to see this organization going down in flames for the crimes they have committed against so many people. It's just icing on the cake if they're going to spend the entire trial making statements that prove they are just as stupid as we've all known they are for so long.

Consumer replies, "When a record company makes yet another lousy, overhyped, disaster of a bubblegum-pop album, I suppose we can say it stole not just money, but a little piece of soul from the entire culture."

My first comment seems to have disappeared. Anyway, I love how these people prove me wrong every time I think to myself "they certainly can't top the level of stupidity they've reached today."

Lube 'er up!

Oh, never mind. My first comment magically appeared. How very embarrasing.

@hypnotik_jello: Yup. This trial is going to be very entertaining, particularly for the RIAA victims.

Interesting. It seems to fly in the face of the court decision that pretty much ruled you could make copies of stuff you owned, as long as it was for personal use. But then, the music industry would very much like that you 'rent' what you get from them, rather than 'own'.

It would also be great if the industry could figure out that they're trying to plug a small leak while water is coming in another giant hole. The 'problem' is already there, and their 'solutions' aren't working.

...Of course, the industry would very much like to avoid how to really solve the problem. Stop releasing music that sucks.

Wow. Nothing really to say to this buy, "WOW!"
What's next? I have to pay a dollar every time I hum a song? Because I had to hear the song to know what to hum.

so, if I buy an apple, and plant the seeds which grows more apples, is that stealing? I basically copying that one apple into many for my personal use, what is wrong with that

@nickripley: You had a nice letter right until you felt the urge to insult her with a epithet. Was that really necessary?

Maybe you should reread some of the Consumerist's guides to contacting people. Politeness and keeping ones cool are usually at the top.

@nickripley: Did you seriously call her a c*nt? Classy, dude. You may not like what she says but there's really no excuse to call her that in an e-mail. Jesus.

i bet you they sell products designed to play these "stolen" tracks. Either that or they are just sore about losing so much ground to Apple with the iPod.

So, she's the legal braintrust behind all this so-called "anti-music-piracy" business?

*shakes head*

So, Jennifer, only men steal music? Sexist ninny.

Is it just me, or was there a post here last week or so about a Sony exec who admitted that he circumvents Sony's copy protection to make copies for his own use? Someone ought to put him in touch with Ms. Pariser; it sounds like they have a lot to talk about.

@nickripley:
Would have been a lot more effective without the c-word. I'm surprised she replied at all.

@darkclawsofchaos: Well yes
Depending on the type of apple and if it was GMO and protected by a patent it may be illegal to plant them, st least for a farm.

Next up, Sony vs. Sony, as the hardware side makes tools that facilitate theft...

Why don't you tell her what you think of her brainlessness?

Jennifer Pariser (212) 833-7362

And before you start whining this number is on the BMG website under contacts.

A few other gems from her testimony: She admitted that IP addresses and screenshots do not identify human beings, she admitted that they don't know how many people downloaded music from the defendant, and (probably quite a surprise to many people) that the record companies have actually LOST money on their lawsuits overall.

The real test for the defense will be going against RIAA leader Cary Sherman but this girl certainly didn't do her employer any favors today.

This sh!t is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s.

Sorry, nothing further to add. This subject is far too ridiculous for me to address lucidly.

i thought the c-bomb gave the email a nice panache.

@darkclawsofchaos: Everything, according to Monsanto.

The problem that happens when you get to the term ownership.
Technically the record company owns the song. Fully it's theirs, they can give it away, sell it, stach it where it will never be seen again or as they do, sell limited rights to it.

People feel that when they pay $9 that they own the song. This is NOT true. You have limited rights to the use of that song. One of the big issues is the limit of your rights.

Fair use is pretty vague, generally to the advantage of the consumer. There is fair use to the duplication of the song, via the home recording act. I don't doubt that MP3 ripping is covered in this.

But in legal terms there are limits to duplication. If I get my dad a CD and rip a copy to listen to all is fine unless we are both listening to different parts of the music at the same time. It may be legal, within rights, to borrow the CD but there are no rights granted to lend MP3's. To put it in short ripping your CD's to MP3 is legal so long as you delete your songs if you lend out the CD. Ripping your apartment mates CD is legally a wrong.

You have the rights to make a copy for yourself. You have the rights to download a copy of a song you have on cd. What is not in your rights is the distribution of copies of the songs online. You do not own the song or copyright. Making copies of the songs available online counts as unauthorized distribution and copying, since the copy of music you have is no longer solely for personal use.

It gets even murkier,or clearer, with digital downloads. If you download a copy of a song for lets say 10 cents as a 64kbps mp3, you intern to not have clear rights to a copy of the same song ripped from a friends CD at a higher bit rate. Record companies would think of it as saying because you purchased a ticket to one artists convert you can get in for free to any other performance.

They may be technically right on a number of issues but that still doesn't make it sensible. Going after people who are ripping CD's for personal use they are setting themselves up to lose.

People DO have the right to make personal copies of media. Comments like hers are stupid. A cd that can not be ripped to MP3 is almost worthless in todays market given the spread of MP3's.

I've only bought 3 cd's since Napster closed it's doors. With the attitudes they have I don't even take their music for free. They can keep it.

BY NICKRIPLEY AT 04:12 PM

@nickripley My first post didn't come through:

Jennifer,

I hear you are a lawyer, but you honestly believe ripping a CD for listening on a digital device is stealing? You aren't much of a lawyer if you aren't familiar with the Home Taping Act.... (You know... like the Sony SonicStage software does with it's mp3 ripping... that product your company distributes.)

Wikipedia has a nice summary if you wanna stop being a c*** for a minute and read it: [en.wikipedia.org]

You emailed her that? I wonder how long until the ex parte order to you ISP and the the demand letter from the "Settlement Support Center" show up? And that's if you are lucky. These people sue mac users for using Kaza, people who've never used a computer and dead people for downloading. Suing you should be no problem...

Calling her a C in public was a really dumb thing to do...

Scarier yet is selling something to someone on ebay with a bmg email address (working there). BMG will forever spam you after that.

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that using the "c" word (or any abusive language) is really unproductive and distracts from your message. Which I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with.

I thought you were explicitly allowed to make copies for personal use (e.g., I make dupe CDs for my car, so when it gets broken into (an inevitability), I don't have to buy new CDs or make a claim on my insurance for them).

Screw them. I'll just stick to independent labels who aren't so lawsuit-happy.

I wonder what the "tort-reform" lobby--normally a front for big business--thinks about this issue.

Man. I wonder how long it will take for people to get so fed up with this crap that they will just plain stop buying any music at all. I am dangerously close to that line.

So then Evey time we listen to a song on the radio we should be charged a listening fee, what douchebags.

[www.duluthnewstribune.com]

If I paid for a song, I should be able to play that song for my own personal use however I want. (This i why I still have over 1,000 cassette tapes sitting in my garage - to show proof that I own the right to those songs on those tapes.

@Techguy1138: Ownership? Herein is a problem...the RECORD COMPANY owns the song, not the artist. What BULLSHIT.
I feel not one whit of remorse or pity for the poor poor record companies. Here are companies that charge artists for manufacturing and packaging of digital downloads (i.e. songs you buy on iTunes) just as though they sold you a physical product. Read that again. It's true.
Fuck the labels, fuck the RIAA, and fuck that cunt.
OMG, profanity!!! Run back to conservipedia you wankers.

@doctor_cos: If they record company owns the song, that means the artist signed away his rights to it. So grow up and get educated.

@doctor_cos:

i wholeheartedly agree. The record companies have been raping (for lack of a better word) consumers AND artists for so many years. The fact that they are only now embracing the digital download instead when napster was in business illustrates their stubbornness to adapt to the changing world, and show that they had hope in continuing to charge crazy prices on albums by suing everyone and everybody.

No wonder our legal system is so fucked up....law schools are giving idiots like this a JD, and the bar association is admitting morons like her!!! Best of all, she probably went to like Harvard Law or something, and worked for some big law firm in NYC. Well, she's a disgrace to the American legal system, Harvard Law School (or whatever law school she went to), the NYS Bar Association, Sony BMG, and every other corporation and law firm she worked for. Not to mention every corporate attorney in the United States.

I keep saying the bar exam needs to be harder, the LSAT needs to be harder, and law school itself needs to be harder. Much. Or maybe just require a higher passing score. And now you know why. It's to keep imbeciles like her from practicing law (and fancypants pearson is in this category as well).

Besides the legal system, I bought all my music, and I'm entitled to use it in any damn way I see fit (short of selling it for profit), so piss off. I'm not paying for multiple copies just because I have friends over and I'm playing music for them. There's a precise reason we pay for it. By the way, we BUY CD's. We BUY MP3s. Therefore, we own the 0's and 1's on the MP3 file or the CD. And we can use it in any damn way we see fit, short of reselling for profit (that opens another can of worms with copyright laws and such).

Is there any audio of her testimony online? It's just the kind of thing that would sound good sampled extensively in music.

She's an embarrassment to the New York State Bar Association and should certainly be disbarred for saying that. Someone forward the above post to the NYSBA.

@swalve:

Actually, it is considered a "work for hire," and the record company owns the copyright by default. The artist has to ADD his or her rights to the contract, the record company doesn't have to specify otherwise.

What if I took an MP3 and made a copy of it (Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) on my computer? And just, y'know, left it there. Useless, sure -- but is that stealing? What's the RIAA's position on that?

What if I made ten copies of the file -- and again, left them all on my computer? Have I stolen a piece of music ten times over?

If it is not permissable to rip an MP3 from a CD I BOUGHT legimately, and it is not permissable to DOWNLOAD an MP3 from a file swap site, then I suppose I will stop buying CDs and only "Steal" them from the file swap sites since it is cheaper to me. Do they not want me to buy CDs? What a frigging joke. I don't mind buying a CD of an artist I enjoy, but telling me I can't rip it and put on my iPod is going too far.

She's right and wrong at the same time. When it comes to intellectual property, in particular copyrights, a copyright gives you exclusive ability to copy, and no one else may do so without prior consent from the copyright owner. However, she's wrong, because copying for yourself and friends has statutorily been considered fair use and exempted from infringement. So essentially, jurisprudentially speaking, it is theft, but statutorily it isn't.

@rolla:
I can see how the record companies pulling crap like this is ripping off the consumer. But the prices that they charge are reasonable.

It like $10-15 for a full album of music. CD are damn cheap. How much do you think a CD should cost? $1,$2,$5?

They do need to make the costs and profits more transparent to the artists. It's not good to bankrupt those who make you money and do half of the work.

Maybe it's just me, but the quote feels a little "out of context"....

On the other hand, I don't believe the RIAA has helped any recording artist, so I'm all for taking an industry spokesperson "out of context."