Newsgroup: it.arti.musica.rock
Titolo: La RIAA adesso se la prende anche con chi detiene copie digitali dei propri CD

"THE LISTENER
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05
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 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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
Saluti
BS 

cut
Beh, la colpa non e' della RIAA, che fa i suoi interessi, ma del
fenomeno di giudice che fa sborsare 220000 dollari ad un povero cristo
che ha messo 24 canzoni in sharing. Se questo e' il metodo le case
discografiche hanno tutto l'interesse a non vendere piu' manco mezzo
cd, diventa molto piu' redditizio fare cause legali a casaccio.
MM