Copying
Music to CD:
The Right, the Wrong, and the Law
 Reporting
on CD-Recordable and the electronic media industry in general
becomes more like studying for a law exam every day. On the
surface, the issue of what type of CD-R usage constitutes copyright
violations seems a simple one: copying discs containing copyrighted
material, such as commercial audio CDs, for re-distribution
and sale constitutes piracy, and clearly represents a breach
of the copyright holder's right to protect his or her work.
But what about using CD-R
to copy, say, a favorite audio CD, or compiling tracks from
various discs in a user's private collection for an enhanced
individual listening experience? What are the copyright issues
in that case? What constitutes a consumer's "fair use"
of copyrighted material that he or she has purchased legally?
And how significant does such an issue become when the widespread
availability of copying-capable tools and the newfound cheapness
of CD recorders makes the technology accessible to a potential
mass audience with exactly such aims in mind?
Determining what the United
States Copyright Act has to say about using CD-R in a "home-taping"-type
context requires research, interpretation, and time; what's
clear right now, however, is that the proliferation of new tools
that make copying audio to CD an end-user-friendly process has
got the record industry on the run. The release of Adaptec's
Spin Doctor and Jam, and CeQuadrat's Just Audio, and Elektroson's
Gear Audio gives the user solid, audio-specific tools for making
"greatest hits" or "party discs" from their
own collections for private use. The new tools also give those
who don't respect the rights of music copyright holders new
opportunities to create "pirate" discs for subterranean
sale or gift-giving that deprive those copyright holders of
deserved royalties.
While no one will deny that
some people borrow and copy music from others and few will argue
against the rights of artists and record companies to make money
from the materials that they produce, the majority of disc copying
is done by individuals who want to have a convenient mix of
songs on a single disc, extracted from CDs, tapes, or LPs that
they already own. But if there are laws, rules, guidelines,
or ethical considerations governing the copying of music--even
for private use--few users are aware of what those laws are
and how they can or should be applied.
What is right and what is
wrong? What types of copying are permissible and what are not?
The answer--no surprise--depends on who you ask.
THE RIAA VERSUS THE AHRA: A HOME-DUPING
SPLIT DECISION
The Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA) is a trade association whose member companies
create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately 90 percent
of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the
United States. The association's 250 members include such familiar
record companies as Warner Brothers Records, Columbia, Motown,
RCA, Geffen, and Capitol, as well as many lesser-known record
labels. The RIAA was founded in 1952 and among the items in
its stated mission is the promotion of strong intellectual property
protection and the prevention of music piracy.
According to Cary Sherman,
the senior executive vice president and general counsel, the
RIAA takes the position that any copying of music to CD that
you perform on your computer is copyright infringement. Whether
the source is digital or analog, whether the disc is a complete
copy of a CD, tape, or LP that you own, or whether it is a compilation
of songs from various sources that you own, the RIAA considers
making such a copy to be a violation of the right of reproduction
granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act of 1976. They
also recognize, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying
immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that
the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as
defined by the AHRA The RIAA's ultimate goal is to require CD-R
and CD-RW hardware manufacturers to look at the copy-protection
bit on an audio disc and refuse to copy if that bit is set to
"on."
Unhappy with the amount of
royalties that are returned to the music industry under the
AHRA and the implications of more widely available audio CD
recording, the RIAA has criticized Philips' plans to introduce
a CD-Rewritable (CD-RW) home audio recorder. The new drive has
been designed entirely in compliance with the AHRA, returning
a royalty to music copyright holders on each recorder and disc
sold and implementing the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS)
on each disc recorded, which switches "on" a copy-protect
bit on a burned CD copy that prevents users from copying that
copy. Philips has in fact gone even farther than the AHRA requires
and included a CD fingerprint system that identifies the particular
machine on which each digital recording is made. Still, the
RIAA has argued that home CD-RW drives raise fresh concerns
not addressed in the AHRA. Home recorders like the forthcoming
Philips model, the RIAA says, "will add a new dimension
to and further aggravate the already very serious problem of
CD piracy by facilitating a cottage industry."
The RIAA's response is as interesting
for its timing as for its alarmist tone, since home recorders
already exist and have for some time. The RIAA's concern more
than anything else likely stems from Philips' announced pricing
of $774, which means the company's drive will sell significantly
cheaper than early home CD recorders which have cost users $1800
to $3000. Presumably, the RIAA is also feeling heat from the
new Pioneer PDR04 home recorder, which has sold for street prices
as low as $899.
The RIAA has also complained that
today's situation differs from the circumstances that led to
the AHRA because the home recorder manufacturers did not enter
into discussions with the music industry about anti-piracy measures
and standards for CD-RW as their counterparts did when digital
audiotape (DAT) recorders debuted. It is difficult to see why
any discussions would be necessary since the AHRA clearly covers
CD-RW already. The RIAA's ultimate goal is to require CD-R and
RW hardware and software manufacturers to look at the copy protection
bit on an audio disc and refuse to copy it if that bit is set
to on.
On the other side of the
issue is the Home Recording Rights Coalition and all those who
believe that Section 1008 of the AHRA gives them the right to
make and play audio CDs, copied or compiled, from materials
that they purchased. The HRRC is a coalition of consumers, consumer
groups, trade associations, retailers, and consumer electronics
manufacturers dedicated to preserving the consumer's rights
to purchase and use home audio and video recording products
for noncommercial purposes. The HRRC was founded in 1981, after
a U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled that time-shift videotaping
of television broadcasts--taping a show to watch it later--was
copyright infringement. The United States Supreme Court later
overruled that case, Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios,
commonly known as "the Betamax case," finding that
time shifting was not copyright infringement. Clearly, however,
when it comes to copying commercial audio recordings to CD,
the jury is still out.
COPYRIGHTS IN MUSIC AND HOW THEY'RE
CONSTITUTED
Most music discs contain copyrighted
material. The basis of copyright protection in the United States
is found in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. The
Constitution empowers Congress "to promote the progress
of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries." The result of this empowerment
is the U.S. Copyright Act, Section 17 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.).
A copyright gives its owner
the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display,
or license the work referenced in the copyright. The holder
of the copyright additionally receives the exclusive right to
produce or license the production of derivatives of the work.
According to the Copyright Act, the owner of copyright has the
exclusive rights "to reproduce the copyrighted work in
copies or phonorecords," a privilege generally known as
the Right of Reproduction. However, the Copyright Act also limits
this exclusive right in Section 107 of the Act, which addresses
"fair use" of copyrighted materials. Although Section
107 enumerates some of the situations that may be considered
fair use--criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,
and research--it certainly does not exclude other uses, such
as home recording for personal use.
Fair use, sometimes referred
to as the Fair Use Doctrine, does not necessarily grant the
user the right to copy material which he or she has purchased.
Fair use is generally reserved for use as a defense to a copyright
infringement action. The criteria set forth in the Act make
it necessary for courts to decide copyright infringement issues
and fair use defenses on a case-by-case basis, applying the
four criteria set out in the Act to the particular infringement
alleged in the case at bar.
Section 202 of the Copyright
Act clearly states that the ownership of a copyright "is
distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied." Therefore, the transfer of ownership
of any material object, such as a CD, does not convey any rights
in the copyrighted work embodied in that object.
Concerning computer programs,
the Copyright Act states that "it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize
the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program,"
as long as the copy is for archival purposes only. This specification
seems ill-suited to being applied to computer programs in that
it refers to the "owner" of the program and most computer
programs are sold under license and no ownership is contemplated
or granted. Nonetheless, making an archival copy of a computer
program is apparently permitted.
THE BETAMAX CASE AND ITS BEARING
ON CD-BURNING
According to the Recording Industry
Association of America, that compilation disc that you made
for your shindig last weekend is a violation of the copyright
owner's right of reproduction. And the RIAA makes no distinction
whether the source of the music is digital or analog. The RIAA's
position is based on the right of reproduction in Section 106
of the Copyright Act. However, Section 1008 of the Audio Home
Recording Act of 1992, entitled "Prohibition on certain
infringement actions," states, "No action may be brought
under this title [The Copyright Act] alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution
of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording
medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium,
or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device
or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical
recordings."
In other words, hardware
manufacturers are free to design, build, and sell digital and
analog recording machines and media and the owners of those
machines cannot be sued for copyright infringement for making
digital or analog recordings of purchased music for non-commercial
use, provided that the machines are designed in compliance with
the AHRA.
Additionally, the recording
of copyrighted audio material can be likened to the recording
of copyrighted video material as approved by the United States
Supreme Court's 1984 Betamax case, Sony Corporation v. Universal
City Studios. In that case, Universal sought an injunction to
keep Sony from selling its Betamax video recorders in the United
States.
The road to the Betamax decision
began in 1976, when Universal City Studios and Walt Disney filed
suit against Sony Corporation, the manufacturer of the Betamax
videocassette recorder. Universal charged contributory copyright
infringement, based on the argument that home taping of copyrighted
television shows and movies for later viewing (time-shifting)
violated Universal and Disney's copyright in those properties.
The United States District Court ruled in favor of Sony at the
trial. In 1981, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court. The Ninth Circuit
found that home time-shift recording was copyright infringement,
and Sony Corporation could be a contributory infringer. The
Supreme Court heard the case in January 1983, but did not issue
an opinion until its second term, after additional oral argument.
In January 1984, the court overruled the decision of the Ninth
Circuit by a single vote. In a memo of June 17, 1993, Justice
Byron White said that he was "not at all convinced that
Congress intended each home recorder of copyrighted works to
be an infringer, whether he records sound or video."
In the court's opinion, "The
sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of
commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the
product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes.
Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing
uses." Quoting the District Court with approval, the court
went on to say, "Whatever the future percentage of legal
versus illegal home-use recording might be, an injunction which
seeks to deprive the public of the very tool or article of commerce
capable of some noninfringing use would be an extremely harsh
remedy, as well as one unprecedented in copyright law."
Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, the District
Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is
no accompanying reduction in the market for plaintiff's original
work." Additionally the Court stated, "A use that
has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or
the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in
order to protect the author's incentive to create."
The Supreme Court's ruling
continued, "Moreover, when one considers the nature of
a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, and that time-shifting
merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been
invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact
that the entire work is reproduced, does not have its ordinary
effect of militating against a finding of fair use." The
Supreme Court concluded that "this record amply supports
the District Court's conclusion that home time-shifting is fair
use."
THE AUDIO HOME RECORDING ACT OF
1992: COPY CONSCIENTIOUSLY
Most of us have recorded a cassette
tape of our favorite songs from other tapes and CDs. Some of
us may have recorded from CD to DAT, or used a home CD recorder
to copy an audio CD. But we noticed in that case that we couldn't
copy the DAT to another DAT. This is because DAT recorders are
equipped with the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS), a copy-protection
technology whose implementation on DAT recordings is mandated
by Chapter 10 of the Copyright Act of 1976. This 1992 addition
to the Copyright Act, titled "Digital Audio Recording Devices
and Media," and generally referred to as the Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA), was added to establish copyright structures
for DAT. It's unclear whether the authors of the Act had recordable
CD in mind; however, the wording of the Act could cover CD-Recordable
drives and media in certain circumstances.
The furor over digital audiotape
that prompted the passage of the AHRA came out of the recording
industry's fear that digital copying would greatly increase
piracy of music because there would be no loss of sound quality
as DAT copies went from generation to generation. For several
reasons, DAT never became a big hit with home users, and Philips'
Digital Compact Cassette (DCC) has never taken off as a music
medium. Since implementation of SCMS prevents copies of copies
from being made, the illegal copying and distribution of DATs
or DCC wasn't, in any event, likely to become a problem.
The AHRA refers to "digital
audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording
mediums," but does not mention DAT, digital audio cassette,
or CD-R by name. It covers musical recordings, but not spoken
word recordings. The Act defines a "Digital Audio Recording
Device" as "any machine or device of a type commonly
distributedÉthe digital recording function which is designed
or marketed for the primary purpose ofÉmaking a digitized audio
copied recording for private use." The Act bars the manufacture,
importation, and distribution of any such device that does not
incorporate the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or a functional
equivalent approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The Serial
Copy Management System is a system that encodes a copy of an
original digital recording with information which prevents users
from making a copy of the copy. Its implementation in DAT systems
manifests itself by allowing the DAT recorder to copy from a
CD to a DAT, but that first-generation tape cannot be subsequently
copied to another DAT. The Act also bars the importation, manufacture,
or distribution of any device, or the offering or performance
of any service that deactivates, disables, removes, or bypasses
the SCMS. Such devices do exist, however, and the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) recently received an
injunction against Technolab Digital Systems, Inc., for manufacturing
and selling a device known as the DigiCon 2, whose purpose was
to circumvent SCMS protections. Circumvention efforts continue,
however, and a little rooting around on the Internet will reveal
plans for a "SCMS Killer" circuit that you can build
yourself.
The Act specifically excludes
media and recorders that are "primarily marketed and most
commonly used... for] making copies of nonmusical literary works,
including computer programs and databases." To fall under
the Act, recorders must be "designed or marketed for the
primary purpose of... making a digital audio-copied recording
for private use."
CD recorder manufacturers have
generally taken the position that their recorders are not designed
or marketed primarily for the purpose of making digital audio
copies and are professional model products. CD-R media, likewise,
is primarily marketed and most commonly used for copying computer
programs and databases.
The AHRA provides that the
importer, manufacturer, or distributor of any digital audio
recording device or digital audio recording media must file
quarterly statements and pay, with those filings, royalties
on each recorder or piece of media distributed in the United
States. The royalty is 2 percent of the manufacturer's selling
price for recorders and 3 percent of the manufacturer's selling
price for recordable media. The royalty minimum for recorders
is one dollar and the maximum is eight dollars, although in
1998, interested parties (such as musicians and music publishers)
may request an increase in the royalty maximum under certain
conditions. There are no minimum or maximum royalties for recording
media.
Two-thirds of the royalties
go into the Sound Recording Fund and are distributed from that
fund to the American Federation of Musicians (2-5Ú8 percent),
the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (1-3Ú8
percent); 40 percent of the remaining royalties go to featured
recording artists and 60 percent are distributed to music publishers.
The remaining third of the
royalties are allocated to the Musical Works Fund and are distributed
evenly between music publishers and songwriters. The percentages
of distribution within each group of beneficiaries is determined
by the groups themselves.
CAN YOU LEGALLY COPY MUSIC? VERDICT:
DEPENDS ON WHOM YOU ASK
The court's finding in the Betamax
case indicates a clear analogy in copying music to CD for private
use. In CD audio duping, the fact that an entire CD is reproduced,
from an original that the consumer bought with the understanding
that he or she had an unlimited right to play it wherever he
or she pleased as many times as he or she pleased and in whatever
order he or she pleased, should not prevent the purchaser from
claiming that it is a fair use to change the order in which
the tracks are played for convenience's sake or added listening
pleasure. What you are doing is, in effect, "order shifting"
instead of "time shifting," which is permissible in
the Betamax case. It is difficult to see much difference between
the two uses.
So, if you are so inclined,
go ahead and make those compilations or reordered copies of
your existing CDs, LPs, and tapes. Although you may not have
a "right to copy," you do have immunity from any copyright
infringement action by operation of Section 1008 of the Audio
Home Recording Act, provided that the copying is performed with
a device designed in compliance with that Act. But expect the
Recording Industry Association of America to attempt in short
order to curtail your rights by trying, through legislation
or litigation, to force CD-R/RW drive makers and CD-R/RW software
companies to prevent you from compiling your favorite songs
from discs you own to CD-R. And expect to see them in for a
battle when they try.
Fair
Use Hypotheticals:
An Exercise in Frustration
Assuming that home copying is in fact a copyright violation,
it is interesting to look at the fair use defense in some hypothetical
cases. The analysis is difficult; a federal court described
the fair use Doctrine as "so flexible as virtually to defy
definition," but it seems to come down in most cases on
the side of home recording being a fair use. The following is
the statement of the fair use doctrine within the Copyright
Act of 1976:
Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions
of Sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use,
the factors to be considered will include the following:
- the purpose and character of
the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- the nature of the copyrighted
work
- the amount and substantiality
of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as
a whole
- the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"The fact that a work is
unpublished," the statement concludes, "shall not
itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon
consideration of all the above factors."
FAIR USE AND AUDIO CD-DUPING:
ISSUES EXAMINED
Given the Fair Use Doctrine and
the RIAA's attempted assault on audio consumer liberties, a
law school examination in a class on "CD-Audio Copyright
Law" might include the following questions:
1. Fred
Copyman is a music lover. He collects records, cassettes, and
CDs. All of the records, tapes, and CDs in his collection have
been purchased by him from music stores. Copyman has a favorite
LP that is not available on CD. Each time he plays it, however,
it physically degrades and he is afraid that it will eventually
become unplayable. He makes a copy of the LP to CD. The CD is
for his own private use. Is this a fair use?
This is a noncommercial use made
partly for the convenience of the copier and partly for the
preservation of the copyrighted music that is embodied in the
material object, the LP. This perspective weighs in favor of
a finding of fair use. The nature of the work is a musical recording.
As a musical recording, it is generally given more protection
than an informational piece such as a news story and that condition
would weigh against a finding of fair use. The amount of the
work copied is the complete contents, which also weighs against
a fair use finding. But what is the effect of the use on the
potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work? The
potential market in this case is presumably none, since the
LP is out of print and the material contained therein was never
committed to CD or tape. Therefore, the use has no impact on
the value or the potential market of the copied work.
Additionally, in this case,
a court should consider the preservation motive, as at some
point Copyman had paid for the LP and thus owns tangible personal
property embodying copyrighted material. Copyman has a right
to protect that tangible personal property that he purchased.
Of course, the copyright owner it could also argue that when
he bought the LP he was presumably aware that it would degrade
with repeated playing and at some point he might have to purchase
a new copy. If he could purchase a new copy on tape or CD, then
this might not be a fair use of the work. However, since in
this case Copyman cannot obtain the material anywhere else,
his right to protect his personal property should supersede
his knowledge that the LP would at some point have to be replaced.
Additionally, assuming that the recording had some historical
value, such as being one of only a few remaining copies of an
album by Woody Guthrie, for instance, this fact should also
be taken into account.
2. Fred
Copyman makes a second copy of a CD that he owns to play on
his car CD player. The CD is for his own private use. If he
had not copied the CD, he would not have bought another copy
from the record store to use in his car. He would have instead
used the original and shuttled it between his car player and
his home player.
The purpose of this use is convenience
and its character is noncommercial. The nature of the copyrighted
work is again a musical recording presumed to have more protection
than straight reporting or less creative works. The whole of
the work has been copied. What is the effect of this use on
the potential market for or value of the work? Since Copyman
would not have bought another copy for his car, there is no
effect on the potential market or the value of the work.
3. Copyman
makes a "party" disc, containing 10 separate copyrighted
audio tracks that he has extracted from 10 different CDs that
he owns. The CD is for his own private use.
Again, applying the fair use analysis,
the purpose of the use is convenience and the use is noncommercial.
Copyman could have obtained the same effect by inserting the
10 source CDs into an Audio CD changer and programming it to
play the 10 tracks that he chose for his disc. The nature of
the copyrighted work is that it is 10 different copyrighted
musical works, presumed to be more protected than certain other
copyrighted material. The amount and substantiality of the portion
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is a calculable
number that consists of the total length of each disc in minutes
and seconds divided by the length of the extracted song. And
the effect of the use on the potential market for the value
of the work is none. This disc is not available from any source.
But let's change the scenario
a little bit. Party discs are available for purchase. Companies
like Custom Revolutions of Stamford, Connecticut specialize
in creating custom CDs for their customers. Assuming that they
had all the songs available in their licensed library, they
could have made the disc for Copyman and would have paid royalties
back to the record companies for each song they recorded onto
the disc. Does the fact that Copyman could have purchased the
disc that he made make a difference? It seems to, since there
is indeed an effect on the potential market for the music contained
on the disc and the value of the work. By making the disc himself,
Copyman does not purchase the custom disc and the record companies
do not get royalties for these 10 songs. Since Custom Revolutions
has already licensed all of its offered content from the record
companies, the discs that they produce are free of the copyright
questions that may be raised in the home recording arena.
For further information on audio
copying and and other CD and DVD issues please visit The
Compact Disc Homepage.
Robert
A. Starrett is a Contributing Editor and columnist (The
CD Writer) for Emedia Professional magazine (formerly CD-ROM
Professional) and an independent CD-ROM, CD Audio and CD-R consultant
and writer based in Denver, Colorado. He has been involved in
CD-ROM and CD-R technology since 1988. In 1989, he produced
the Colorado Revised Statutes on CD-ROM, the first state statute
disc ever produced, and one of the first legal CD-ROM applications
in the United States. He has extensive experience with not only
CD-ROM and CD-R, but other optical storage devices such as WORM,
MO, PD and other storage technologies. He is the author of several
software packages for law office automation.
Mr. Starrett worked extensively
with CD recordable technology at Meridian Data, Inc., the producers
of the first CD-Recordable system, installing and supporting
many of the early CD recording systems. While at Meridian Data
he was also responsible for the development of applications,
including data conversion, indexing and retrieval, and production
of CD-R prototype discs for Fortune 500 companies.
Mr. Starrett has a B.A. from Metropolitan
State College, in Denver, Colorado. He was twice the recipient
of the Colorado Scholar's Award. He has a J.D. degree from the
University of Colorado School of Law, in Boulder, Colorado.
He practiced law in Colorado for several years before becoming
involved exclusively in Compact Disc technology.
For the Record:
The RIAA Position on Home Copying
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents
the interests of record companies, and indirectly, the interests
of the artists, backup musicians and vocalists, and songwriters
whose music they produce. The RIAA cannot speak for all record
copyright owners, let alone the songwriters and music publishers
who own the copyright in the musical works embodied in every
recording. Each copyright holder individually has the right
to interpret--and enforce--his or her own copyright rights as
he or she deems appropriate. So what follows is merely the RIAA's
view on home taping generally.
Any unauthorized reproduction
of a sound recording is technically a copyright infringement.
It does not matter whether the reproduction is from a CD to
a cassette tape, from a CD to a hard drive, or from a CD to
a CD-Recordable disc. In reality, however, no record company
has ever sued a consumer for copying music for noncommercial
purposes. Moreover, since 1992, with the passage of the Audio
Home Recording Act, consumers have been allowed immunity from
lawsuits for copyright infringement for all analog and some
digital recording. Importantly, however, that immunity does
not extend to recording by means of general-purpose digital
recording devices, including almost all of the CD-R and CD-RW
devices on the market today.
The problem record companies
have with home copying is its aggregate impact. One individual
making one copy is not going to cause significant harm. But
millions of individuals doing the same thing can, and do, cause
extraordinary harm. And with the advent of the Internet, a single
individual can do incalculable damage all by himself.
It's important to understand
that record companies make their money virtually exclusively
from the sale of records. If records aren't sold, but are copied
instead, the business of making music suffers. Artists and songwriters
don't collect royalties, and at some point, can no longer make
a living in the music business; record companies don't recoup
their investment, and at some point, are no longer able to invest
in new artists and new music. In the end, the losers will be
those who love music--because the breadth and depth of the musical
talent supported by the U.S. music industry cannot exist without
financial support. The winners are the companies that make copying
machines and blank media; they profit from selling their devices
to consumers who want music without having to pay for it.
What record companies want
and need is a technical means of preventing unauthorized transmissions
and preventing or limiting copying. It happens that such a technical
solution is already available with respect to CD copying. Every
CD has a copy protection bit encoded in it. If the software
used to copy CDs on CD-R machines would simply read for that
bit and disable the record function when the bit is found, the
aggregate damage caused by unlimited CD copying could be avoided.
Steve Fabrizzio is vice president
for anti-piracy and civil litigation at the Recording Industry
Association of America.
Companies
Mentioned in This Article
Adaptec, Inc.
691 Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035; 408/945-8600;
Fax 408/262-2533; http://www.adaptec.com
CeQuadrat USA, Inc.
1804 Embarcadero Road, Suite 101, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 800/330-6734,
650/843-3780; Fax 650/843-3799; http://www.cequadrat.com
Custom Revolutions
1 Atlantic Street, Stamford, CT 06901; 203/323-8900; http://www.customdisc.com
Elektroson, Inc.
2105 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 160, Campbell, CA 95008; 800/606-6116,
408/371-4800; Fax 408/371-4895; http://www.elektroson.com
Home Recording Rights Coalition
1145 19th Street, P.O. Box 33576, Washington, DC 20033; 800/282-8273;
http://www.hrrc.org
Philips Key Modules
2099 Gateway Place, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95110; 408/453-7373;
408-453-6444; http://www.km.philips.com
Recording Industry Association
of America
http://www.riaa.com
|