RIAA et al. says CD ripping, backups not fair use
If anyone has any doubts about the content industry's resolve to destroy fair use and usher in new ways of charging you for uses that were previously both free and fair, look no further. As part of the triennial review of the effectiveness of the DMCA, a number of content-related industries have filed a joint reply (PDF) with the government on the effectiveness of the DMCA and the challenges that lay ahead for copyright. As you might expect, the document is a celebration of the DMCA, and the industries are pushing for even more egregious abuses of technology to fatten up their bottom lines.
With regards to the argument that the DMCA is bad law because it prevents users from making backups, the joint reply dismissed such arguments as "uncompelling." First, they argue that there is no evidence that "any of the relevant media are 'unusually subject to damage in the ordinary course of their use.'" This "cart-before-the-horse" argument suggests that people do not need to backup anything that does not have a high failure rate—a view that fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of backups. Furthermore, they argue that the success of DVD sales vis-à-vis VHS demonstrates that whatever problem there might be, it's not big enough to matter to consumers, because DVD sales are skyrocketing while VHS isn't. Thus high sales volumes are indicators that the consumer are well served, which is an argument that we'll hope never takes hold in the pharmaceutical industry (Vioxx sure did sell well!).
Such are the lengths they will go through in order to keep the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA intact. But supporting the status quo isn't in their interest. No, the idea is to embrace and extend. To wit, the joint reply also argues that making backups of your CDs is also not fair use.
The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights. (emphasis added)
As you can see, the argument is hinged partially on the cost of replacements. Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"
But they're not done with that argument. The real kicker is buried in a footnote, where the joint reply suggests the unthinkable: that making copies of CDs for any purpose may, in fact, be infringement.
Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even "routinely" granted, see C6 at 8, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright holders in the Grokster case, is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use.
Allow me to translate: just because people have been copying CDs in the past doesn't mean that that they had the authorization to do so, and a general trend does not override such explicit authorization. But as the EFF has picked up, the RIAA is engaging in a little historical revision. Their last comment about the Grokster case is attempting to change the substance of comments that were uttered by their own legal counsel. Why they would do this is abundantly clear when you see the statement in question:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
It looks like someone is having a change of heart.
In the world of the joint reply, if and when the RIAA and its member studios say that copying your CDs is not permitted, then it's not permitted. Forget fair use. Forget historical precedent. The joint reply here is arguing that copyright owners have the authority to deny what has become fair use—what their own lawyers have admitted is fair use in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. The upshot is that this argument suggests that the most common form of CD "copying"—namely ripping CDs for use on computers and portable players—is not necessarily fair use. The joint reply adds:
Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use, for reasons similar to those the Register canvassed in detail in her 2003 determination that back-up copying of DVDs cannot be treated as noninfringing. [Ed note: see above arguments.] While we recognize that access controls may in some circumstances affect copying, the fact remains that there is no general exception to the reproduction right to allow back-up copying (except the limited exception in § 117 for computer programs) and thus no justification for allowing circumvention of access controls for this purpose.
Inasmuch as the joint reply was grafted in defense of the DMCA, it remains unclear if the RIAA has any plans to take up this line of argument in front of legislators or the public. It does mark, however, yet another development in the erosion of fair use, and it demonstrates that the insidious notion of "customary historic use" stems from part of the industry's campaign to legislate new business models that fly in the face of fair use, the doctrine of first sale, and limited copyrights.
With regards to the argument that the DMCA is bad law because it prevents users from making backups, the joint reply dismissed such arguments as "uncompelling." First, they argue that there is no evidence that "any of the relevant media are 'unusually subject to damage in the ordinary course of their use.'" This "cart-before-the-horse" argument suggests that people do not need to backup anything that does not have a high failure rate—a view that fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of backups. Furthermore, they argue that the success of DVD sales vis-à-vis VHS demonstrates that whatever problem there might be, it's not big enough to matter to consumers, because DVD sales are skyrocketing while VHS isn't. Thus high sales volumes are indicators that the consumer are well served, which is an argument that we'll hope never takes hold in the pharmaceutical industry (Vioxx sure did sell well!).
Such are the lengths they will go through in order to keep the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA intact. But supporting the status quo isn't in their interest. No, the idea is to embrace and extend. To wit, the joint reply also argues that making backups of your CDs is also not fair use.
The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights. (emphasis added)
As you can see, the argument is hinged partially on the cost of replacements. Why should you be allowed to make backups of CDs you've purchased when you can replace them? And why should CD backups be legal when users can already decided to purchase from (DRM-laden) services that do allow the limited copying of lossy music files? Here, again, we see the way in which the RIAA et al. would like to see contract law take over the domain of fair use. "Leave it up to DRM, you big dummies!"
But they're not done with that argument. The real kicker is buried in a footnote, where the joint reply suggests the unthinkable: that making copies of CDs for any purpose may, in fact, be infringement.
Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even "routinely" granted, see C6 at 8, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright holders in the Grokster case, is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use.
Allow me to translate: just because people have been copying CDs in the past doesn't mean that that they had the authorization to do so, and a general trend does not override such explicit authorization. But as the EFF has picked up, the RIAA is engaging in a little historical revision. Their last comment about the Grokster case is attempting to change the substance of comments that were uttered by their own legal counsel. Why they would do this is abundantly clear when you see the statement in question:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
It looks like someone is having a change of heart.
In the world of the joint reply, if and when the RIAA and its member studios say that copying your CDs is not permitted, then it's not permitted. Forget fair use. Forget historical precedent. The joint reply here is arguing that copyright owners have the authority to deny what has become fair use—what their own lawyers have admitted is fair use in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. The upshot is that this argument suggests that the most common form of CD "copying"—namely ripping CDs for use on computers and portable players—is not necessarily fair use. The joint reply adds:
Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use, for reasons similar to those the Register canvassed in detail in her 2003 determination that back-up copying of DVDs cannot be treated as noninfringing. [Ed note: see above arguments.] While we recognize that access controls may in some circumstances affect copying, the fact remains that there is no general exception to the reproduction right to allow back-up copying (except the limited exception in § 117 for computer programs) and thus no justification for allowing circumvention of access controls for this purpose.
Inasmuch as the joint reply was grafted in defense of the DMCA, it remains unclear if the RIAA has any plans to take up this line of argument in front of legislators or the public. It does mark, however, yet another development in the erosion of fair use, and it demonstrates that the insidious notion of "customary historic use" stems from part of the industry's campaign to legislate new business models that fly in the face of fair use, the doctrine of first sale, and limited copyrights.
posted by Chris Placitella at 6:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home