RIAA warns consumers of selling pre-loaded iPods | iLounge News

News

RIAA warns consumers of selling pre-loaded iPods

The Recording Industry Association of America is warning consumers that it is illegal to sell a used iPod that is pre-loaded with digital content. “Selling an iPod pre-loaded with music is no different than selling a DVD onto which you have burned your entire music collection,” the RIAA said in a statement to MTV News. “Either act is a clear violation of U.S. copyright law. The RIAA is monitoring this means of infringement. In short: seller beware.”

Andrew Bridges, a lawyer who specializes in copyright and trademark law, says the law is not so clear. “It really depends on the individual circumstances,” he explained. “I’m not sure the law is settled. If I’m a college student and I want to supplement my income by buying 100 iPods and taking my CD collection and putting it on those iPods and selling them at a significant premium, that’s probably not going to fly. But if I’ve had my iPod Shuffle for two years and I’m tired of it and I go out and buy a 60 gig video iPod and want to sell my old Shuffle, but don’t want to purge the music first, that’s probably legal.”

“There is very clear provision in the statute that says that if you are in possession of a copy that has been lawfully made, you can distribute that copy without violating the copyright holder’s copyright,” said Bridges. “That seems to suggest that there shouldn’t be a case against a casual user disposing of copies they made for personal use when one is getting rid of one’s own iPod.”

RIAA President Cary Sherman disagrees. “Unlawful reproduction or distribution is infringement.” he said. “There is no fair use when someone is getting a complete copy of a work, especially a creative work and especially when it could have an adverse impact on the marketplace for selling or licensing that work. When you buy a CD, you have it for personal use on your computer or iPod, but you can’t give it away and keep it for yourself. That’s having your cake and eating it too. If everyone did that, [record labels] would only sell one CD.”

« Mix: Swimsuit videos, Aussie death, Walkman phone, 7-Eleven

Sumo Tough Love Valentine contest ends tomorrow »

Related Stories

Comments

41

Now, Mr. Sherman has a point if the user who gives away his “pre loaded” lesser ipod (or other mp3 equipped device, iriver H10 or CD, etc.) intends to duplicate his music collection onto another mp3 system (whether it’s an ipod, and is newer, or not). He has made another copy of the work(s) that is *not* for his own personal use. This *IS* distribution of copyrghted works and *IS* a violation of law. Sorry, Mr. Bridges.

Posted by Joe on February 14, 2006 at 5:17 PM (PDT)

42

The RIAA is taking the stand that it doesn’t matter if you are selling the iPod at a premium for the additional songs, or if you are just not wiping the hard drive before you give away or sell your iPod. Either way, it’s a copyright violation to them.

However, the Betamax case found that consumers had a right to tape for their own purposes. It didn’t specify that they had to erase all those tapes before disposing of them. Why is an iPod any different than all those home taped VHS tapes in junk stores and on ebay?

If a digital file is created legally (which loading one’s CD onto one’s iPod certainly is), then the RIAA has no right to specify what becomes of it. As long as it isn’t duplicated illegally (not for personal use), it’s fair game.

Posted by Stephen Worth in North Hollywood, CA on February 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM (PDT)

43

I love all you intellectual property lawyers posting - oh wait, YOU’RE NOT IP lawyers, are you?
No.
Quit trying to use your two years of community college .edu to change IP law.

SB

Posted by SB on February 14, 2006 at 6:40 PM (PDT)

44

doesn’t take an IP lawyer to know some common sense… it’s illegal, period.

Posted by commonsense on February 14, 2006 at 6:46 PM (PDT)

45

commonsense:

You’re preaching to the choir - I was talking to those who think they can legitimize stealing…

SB

Posted by sb on February 14, 2006 at 7:16 PM (PDT)

46

I like CD’s they are quaint, they remind me of grandma’s house but God knows I would never actually pay for one.

The truth is the industry has changed.  The RIAA will have to change.  They are fighting a losing battle.

Posted by Kyle on February 14, 2006 at 8:27 PM (PDT)

47

it been said before and ill say it again, it all comes down to cheap people that dont want to buy cds because there cheap people

simple as that

all the music that is available to you for free wouldnt exist w/out the RIAA

if we didnt have these god forsaken computers you wouldnt think twice about going and buying an album. its just that downloading software has given those who steal music a sense that they are these guerillas that are overtaking this evil force that is the RIAA.. but get your heads out of the clouds.. you’re not impressing anyone, all your doing is making an example of the degeneration of principles in today’s generation of youths

i’d gladly give up my computer to go back to a time when people actually had real concrete values and appreciation for good music, not the blatant disrespect for it that is everywhere today. throw on a 45, and relax to the music youve acquired without having to be burdened by the technological crutches that this hellbound world are so fcking dependant on these days

have your ipods, enjoy your music, just stop trying to baselessly justify something that is wrong

Posted by . on February 14, 2006 at 11:11 PM (PDT)

48

The real issue is not the law. The law here is not onerous nor unfair. In fact it’s perfectly fair and reasonable.

The issue is the people at the RIAA. They are scared, aggressive and desperate and don’t seem to have any people skills.

I won’t feel sorry for them (oh, poor RIAA, standing up for artists’ rights) but in this case, ignore them and focus on common sense: when selling your iPod, just don’t advertise the music on it. Come on, that’s not too hard and it doesn’t infringe on your rights. Put your ego away and focus on making the world a better place.

Posted by Pikemann Urge on February 14, 2006 at 11:53 PM (PDT)

49

And of course you people don’t get what we’re saying. It’s not that we want to legalize stealing. It’s that we want a fair music industry. Fair for everyone. And until that is a reality… we won’t take much heed to what the RIAA has to say.

Posted by Just me on February 15, 2006 at 12:12 AM (PDT)

50

I’m sorry, are we talking about the same record labels who plea-bargined their way out of CD price-fixing charges? (A settlement that flooded public libraries with unsold copies of   such classics as “4 ‘Mo Tenors’ and the ever popular “Yolanda Adams Christmasâ€?)

That’s what I thought. . . .

Posted by bennyprofane on February 15, 2006 at 11:01 AM (PDT)

51

Or are these the same companies who proclaimed that “Home taping is killing the music industry.” 
Seems that they’ve pulled quite Lazarus since 1980. . . .

Posted by bennyprofane on February 15, 2006 at 11:09 AM (PDT)

52

The End Of The RIAA?
If I have to read one more post in defense of the poor RIAA I’m going to vomit. First let me start by saying that although I was a big fan of the origional Napster I no longer download commercialy available recordings for free. This has nothing to do with the countless threats from the RIAA. For the majority of musicians, their future in music is determined by album sales, so I came to see each of my musical purchases as a vote for that artist. Sure, each artist may only recieve a paultry 2 to 4 percent of the price but in addition they build up credibility (via sales potential) with their label. It may only be as little as 2%-4% but it’s significant when you consider that most new artists end up in debt to their label when all is said and done and their tour is over. Let’s think about this for a second. THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE AND PERFORM THE MUSIC REGULARLY END UP IN DEBT TO THE PARASITES WHO HAVE BEEN RIPPING OFF ARTISTS FOR SO LONG THAT IT’S BOTH COMMONPLACE AND LEGAL. Still, some try to convince me that the RIAA is looking out for artists. Thats like saying that cattle farmers are concerned with animal rights, not bloody likely! The bottom line is that the recording industry is scared. In the past artists had no options but to go through the industry. However, now, with the advent of the inexpensive home studio and the internet, the music industry is seeing signs of their comming extinction and they are getting desperate. Take for example the band “Clap Your Hands Say Yea”. I have to admit that their vocals are an aquired taste, to say the least, but they have seen considerable success in the indy music scene. The best part is that their album is completely self recorded an released. Yes folks, imagine a world where music costs $7.00 an album and the artist, instead of getting single digit percentages, gets 95% of the proffits. Marketing is the last big issue for independant artists to overcome and web sites like myspace are helping to solve that problem along with other up and coming sites that soon will distribute your music through iTunes and other online services for a small fee. Yes the RIAA’s fear is palpable these days. Think cornered animal. As their profits continue to dwindle we can expect to see more desperate legislation. Consider it a “death rattle”. Yes folks, the end of the RIAA is in sight. Just don’t stop voting for your favorite artists, through your purchases just because the industry is full of crooks. Do not believe for one second that you don’t have the right to give away that which you purchase legaly! On a different note we now can see how useful these forums really are. For instance, thanks to this forum, B.S.(or is it S.B.) just learned about human nature.

Posted by T.S. on February 15, 2006 at 1:48 PM (PDT)

53

Yes, imagine a world T-A$$ where artists nobody has ever heard of (except in the way-cool coffee shops where hip guys like you hang out) make 95% of nothing - LOL
One day, you’ll get a big-kid’s job and have a better understanding of what it takes to promote and distribute music and make a profit.  That’s tight, T-A$$, profit.  See, these evil record companies are public-owned companies with (hold your breath now) stockholders!!!
Now, you can go to the Soviet Union and promote socialism all you like, but here in the good ol’ USA, we like the free-market way of doing things.
Not perfect by a long shot, but it works pretty damn well most of the time.
And yes, I do learn from places like this - guys/gals like you love to post how proud you are of your thievery, and that’s enlightening, and sad.

Take care.
SB, or BS, whatever you like.

Posted by SB on February 15, 2006 at 3:24 PM (PDT)

54

Yeah. . .
Independent distribution=socialism
Please elaborate.

Posted by bennyprofane on February 15, 2006 at 3:29 PM (PDT)

55

I didn’t say “Independent distribution=socialism” I was saying that for all of you that think record labels aren’t entitled to make profit form artist’s work, you’re crazy.

Do you have any idea how much money it costs to promote/record/distribute music?

Are they not entitled to make profits?  Do you see successful (commercially) artists starving and not driving Bentleys?

Come on.  You can say good artists starve because labels take all the money, but that’s BS.  Who fronts the cash for a new band/artist that may or may not make any money?

I think it’s great that some can record/distribute and make their own success happen outside of labels, but HOW successful have any of them been without the clout of a label?

Curious.

Posted by SB on February 15, 2006 at 3:47 PM (PDT)

56

Here are some ways to combat music piracy

1) Charge reasonable prices for CDs and especially virtual music (i.e music bought
from a download site). There is no inventory,
storage, rent, physical media, artwork, or
jewel cases with this type of music. So 99
cents is a bit too high for a download.

2) Allow people to return CDs. Too many people got burned buying a $20 CD only
to find that it has one or two good songs on it. In this case the RIAA/labels robbed the
consumer.

After all what’s to prevent a person from
recording a day’s worth of music off satellite/cable and using a software tool
to generate mp3 files from these songs?

Whats’s to prevent a person from “taping off the radio”, or borrowing a CD, newspaper, or
book from the library. The author of the book is not compensated when books are loaned from a library.

Posted by Tom Buffe on April 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM (PDT)

Page 3 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy