Real Networks CEO Discusses Apple iPods And Piracy

[edenwaith]

Vielen Dank

Thank you, Mr. Glaser. Thank you. Because of your wise words, I now realize that at least 800 of the 1600+ songs I have on my iPod are illegal. I am shamed from my illegal practices, and I vouch to never steal again!

But you know what the funny thing is? Why did I 'steal' all of those songs that I already have on my 300+ CDs? Haha!

Most of the songs on my iPod are from my CDs, and that's not even half of my music collection (on CD). I probably have a little over 100 songs from the iTMS now, I believe, and a couple of other tracks from the old days of MP3.com where I picked up some songs from The Franklin-Neumann Project (also have the CDs) or Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie.

 

[ethernet76]

Where did he get these statistics?

He doesn't seem to think (or realize) that iPod owners rip their own CDs.

Of course, he's got an axe to grind and an uphill battle to fight, so you wouldn't expect him to be the most reliable source for facts about the iPod.

He got it from common knowledge. The people likely to buy iPods are the same crowd who've used napster, limewire, and kazaa.

They're the type of people who can run these programs and add their songs, but in a tight spot wouldn't be able to fix their computer.

I'd even put the figure at over 50 percent.

Glaser should be sued for slander, as he knows **** about the law...

Even in the U.S. with its absurd DMCA, people are still able to share personal copies of lawfully obtained works with family/friends, provided they occur on a non-commercial basis. From the U.S. copyright act:

"§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title 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 jurisdictions such as Brazil, Germany and Switzerland this is even clearer, with freedom for anyone to share on a personal, non-commercial basis (read: shared with close friends and relatives) copyrighted works he/she has lawfully obtained, like a music CD.

Notwithstanding these legal remarks, it's an obvious fact people's collections originate from their OWN CD collections. I've never bought any songs from iTMS, and can surely assert that at least 85% of my music came from my OWN CDs (the rest formed by songs shared with me from close relatives or other lawful sources).

It's also funny to hear that iPod users are guilty, but not the others using crappy Rios or Creatives...as if there were any differences...

He is an idiot, and someone should spare him from such self-induced stupid remarks...better yet, it's about time for Real to just shut down its crappy online music or at least drop its hypocrisy and give real "interoperability" to users not on Windows...get a grip, Glaser, and accept your ridiculous defeat.

What's the definition of share? Is sharing letting a friend borrow the CD to listen to it, or is it letting them burn/rip a copy of your CD.

I'd be hard pressed to believe it is the latter. At that point you are committing piracy. Making an exact duplicate for someone who might otherwise buy the retail CD.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Glaser should be sued for slander, as he knows **** about the law...


It's also funny to hear that iPod users are guilty, but not the others using crappy Rios or Creatives...as if there were any differences...

I completely agree ... he knows that the majority of songs sold from Real's store also go onto Mp3 players that may (or may not) contain files that were not purchased by retail means.

He really should be sued because he is maliciously singling out Apple

 

[Timepass]

he has a point that most song on people iPods are not legal copies. Pulling a number like his would not be very hard just do a random survay of 1000 ipods and you get pretty close to what is is really like.
I would be surpise if I have a little over 25 songs from iTunes so I bring that number up a bit but on the flip side well over 50% of my libary is not legal. it is a very safe bet 50% of all song on ipods are not legal copies of the songs it is a simple as that. People on these borads number are not going to be near the average and will have a much higher % of legal songs and ones of iTMS but for the population it another store.

 

[dr_lha]

What's the definition of share? Is sharing letting a friend borrow the CD to listen to it, or is it letting them burn/rip a copy of your CD.

I'd be hard pressed to believe it is the latter. At that point you are committing piracy. Making an exact duplicate for someone who might otherwise buy the retail CD.

No you're not:

From: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=847

As Jessica Litman, author of “Digital Copyright,” writes in her law review article “War Stories,” 20 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law
Journal 337 (2002):

Under the old way of thinking about things, copying your CD and carrying the copy around with you to play in your car, in your Walkman, or in your cassette deck at work is legal. Borrowing a music CD and making a copy on some other medium for your personal use is legal. Recording music from the radio; maxing different recorded tracks for a ‘party tape,’ and making a copy of one of your CDs for your next-door neighbor are, similarly, all lawful acts. The copyright law says so: section 1008 of the copyright statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of recorded music without liability. Many people seem not to know this any more.

 

[HiroProtagonist]

Missing Something...

Am I missing something.... How is people's method of obtaining music, other than the iTunes store, Apple's Problem?

 

[50548]

What's the definition of share? Is sharing letting a friend borrow the CD to listen to it, or is it letting them burn/rip a copy of your CD.

I'd be hard pressed to believe it is the latter. At that point you are committing piracy. Making an exact duplicate for someone who might otherwise buy the retail CD.

No. it's not piracy because you're sharing copies of things you lawfully own on a non-commercial and limited basis (Napster tried to escape on that, but it was a business). That's why you already pay a royalty fee on virgin media, to compensate for the expected "losses" of copyright holders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax

As I said, this is even clearer in the Brazilian or other European jurisdictions...you cannot be sued for sharing personal copies with close friends and relatives. But I agree that in the U.S. the lobbies of RIAA/MPAA make things a bit more complicated.

p.s.: a harsher/stricter interpretation may be that those receiving the CDs from friends/relatives are indirectly profiting from copyrighted work, or at least violating authors' rights...but then again we had the same things with cassettes many years ago...it's more like a matter of good sense...you cannot be regarded as a criminal for receiving ONE CD with interesting songs from your brother-in-law...this is just plain ridiculous.

 

[nagromme]

Glaser's figures:

* The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25. (About 2 albums in the whole lifetime you've owned your iPod.)

* There are many more songs on iPods than 25.

* About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately.

THERFORE:

* iPods have only about 50 songs on average. (The Shuffle is clearly overkill.)

* 25 of them (which is "many more" than the 25 legal songs) are illegal. Half of 50.

* None of them are from existing CD collections. They are all bought "for" the iPod or else illegal.

* Of the illegal music, it's all music that wouldn't have been pirated without the iPod. People were honest before iPods made it easier to pirate. (iPod somehow help you copy CDs and perform illegal downloads.)

* And iTunes clearly doesn't promote legal downloading.

Thanks for the data, Rob!

 

[Timepass]

Glaser's figures:

* The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25. (About 2 albums in the whole lifetime you've owned your iPod.)

* There are many more songs on iPods than 25.

* About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately.

THERFORE:

* iPods have only about 50 songs on average. (The Shuffle is clearly overkill.)

* 25 of them (which is "many more" than the 25 legal songs) are illegal. Half of 50.

* None of them are from existing CD collections. They are all bought "for" the iPod or else illegal.

* Of the illegal music, it's all music that wouldn't have been pirated without the iPod. People were honest before iPods made it easier to pirate. (iPod somehow help you copy CDs and perform illegal downloads.)

* And iTunes clearly doesn't promote legal downloading.

Thanks for the data, Rob!

umm I dont know how you came up with your number

25 songs off itms for the ipod. Reasonble number.

No where did he say 50 songs per ipod is average. No he stated 50% of the songs on there are illegel. Rip songs off personal cds are legit. But come on so that assumtion is false. you made it and I can not see how you can infer that. But he was stating apple system does incurage pirating for the ipod.

He state no where you logic. He stated facts. about 50% of the music on the iPod is not legal copies. more than likely more than 50% of the music on computer is not legal. My iPod has a much higher % of legal music on it than my computer but still over 50% of it is not legit. The currently iTMS and iPod set up doesnt help matters in the case since you are limited on which store (now if it was open to all store it would help out but still 50% more than likely would still not be legel)

 

[Blue Velvet]

Is he somehow implying that people who own other 'MP3' players don't pirate music?

 

[nagromme]

No where did he say 50 songs per ipod is average.

My point was to highlight the absurdity of his comments, which downplay the very thing you and I know: that there are a lot more legal songs than just iTunes songs.

But if HE is using the number "only 25 songs bought for iPod" to support his piracy claims, which total 50%, then yes, I can infer the absurd conclusion that there are 50 songs per iPod

It's parody

Is he somehow implying that people who own other 'MP3' players don't pirate music?

Obviously! Other MP3 players don't have built-in Limewire and dual CD drives like iPods have.

This is why the RIAA refused to work with Apple until leaders like Real paved the way for latecomers like iTunes.

 

[mkrishnan]

Is he somehow implying that people who own other 'MP3' players don't pirate music?

They don't, do they?

Oh, erm, no...it's implying that basically no one owns any of the other MP3 players, so analyzing patterns of consumption on those devices is irrelevant.

 

[shamino]

What's the definition of share? Is sharing letting a friend borrow the CD to listen to it, or is it letting them burn/rip a copy of your CD.

I'd be hard pressed to believe it is the latter. At that point you are committing piracy. Making an exact duplicate for someone who might otherwise buy the retail CD.

You're both part right.

The quoted section of the copyright law does say that you can not be prosecuted for non-commercial infringement.

But you have to read it in the context of the rest of the chapter (aka the Audio Home Recording Act). section 2 requires digital audio recorders to implement SCMS copy protection or some equivalent, and makes it illegal to circumvent these features. Subsequent sections also require royalty paments from the sale of recorders and media (which is why consumer audio CD recorders require you to buy audio media and won't record to generic CD-R media.)

Taken together, the law says that you can not be prosecuted for non-commercial duplication of music only when an AHRA-compliant recorder is used. Computer CD-RW drives do not implement SCMS and do not require tariffed media, and are therefore not applicable.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The copyright law is large and is constantly debated by a lot of high-paid lawyers. Don't think you can completely understand your rights based on a quote of a single out-of-context paragraph. (And don't think you can completely understand it from this message either!)

No. it's not piracy because you're sharing copies of things you lawfully own on a non-commercial and limited basis (Napster tried to escape on that, but it was a business). That's why you already pay a royalty fee on virgin media, to compensate for the expected "losses" of copyright holders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax

Yes. But this permission only applies (in the US, anyway) if you use AHRA-compliant recorders. The ones that implement SCMS copy protection and require the use of tariffed media.

They do not apply if you use your computer, where no royalties are paid for the recorder and non-tariffed media can be used.

Of course, the law in other countries will be different.

 

[50548]

You're both part right.

The quoted section of the copyright law does say that you can not be prosecuted for non-commercial infringement.

But you have to read it in the context of the rest of the chapter (aka the Audio Home Recording Act). section 2 requires digital audio recorders to implement SCMS copy protection or some equivalent, and makes it illegal to circumvent these features. Subsequent sections also require royalty paments from the sale of recorders and media (which is why consumer audio CD recorders require you to buy audio media and won't record to generic CD-R media.)

Taken together, the law says that you can not be prosecuted for non-commercial duplication of music only when an AHRA-compliant recorder is used. Computer CD-RW drives do not implement SCMS and do not require tariffed media, and are therefore not applicable.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The copyright law is large and is constantly debated by a lot of high-paid lawyers. Don't think you can completely understand your rights based on a quote of a single out-of-context paragraph. (And don't think you can completely understand it from this message either!)

Yes. But this permission only applies (in the US, anyway) if you use AHRA-compliant recorders. The ones that implement SCMS copy protection and require the use of tariffed media.

They do not apply if you use your computer, where no royalties are paid for the recorder and non-tariffed media can be used.

Of course, the law in other countries will be different.

You are partly right, but it's possible for a good lawyer to argue, at least in the U.S. context, that the AHRA still applies for private copying/distribution based on the following points (notwithstanding the precedents of the Aimster/Napster cases):

1) that the burden to implement the SCMS (or similar) is on interested copyright parties, and that SCMS is a specific DRM scheme; therefore, if the technology used in recorders ALLOWS for SCMS (or similar DRM schemes) but it's not used because it's old, or because music companies keep distributing non-DRMed CDs, or CDs with other DRMs, the user would still be able to invoke section 1008 (in other jurisdictions, this is known as "evolutionary interpretation of the law");

2) one should bear in mind that section 1008 ALSO mentions analog recordings, in a broader sense than in previous sections; one could imply, thus, that SCMS compliance is NOT necessary for invoking section 1008. Its scope is about a) freedom to trade; b) freedom to make personal uses of technologies, EVEN under the analog umbrella...it's NOT about the SCMS (besides, the connector "or" is of importance here, as it presents distinct hypotheses):

"Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title 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."

3) lastly, section 1001 defines "digital recording device" without mentioning the SCMS or other DRM schemes. Therefore, the concept is broader than the prohibition under section 1002.

 

[Silencio]

Instead of talking bull, why don't Real get there collective asses in gear and get a Universal build of Realplayer out, you know.. something useful rather than whining.

edit: Checked again expecting nothing.. but Shock!!! They've finally done it..
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8428

Yeah, they released RealPlayer 10.1 (Universal binary, bug/security fixes) earlier this week, definitely sooner than I expected.

Oddly enough, I've been pretty happy with RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X. It's by far the best version they've ever put out: fairly painless to install, not as intrusive as other versions, decent to good UI implementation. Then again, I'm finding fewer and fewer sites that stream Real these days -- it's almost all Windows Media or Quicktime now.

 

[Doctor Q]

Thanks for trying to help the rest of us understand some of these fine points, shamino and BRLawyer. This certainly shows why John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public have trouble understanding what they may and may not do.

Doing income taxes has become so complicated that a large number of people turn theirs over to professionals. Perhaps we all need personal DRM assistants to tell us whether or not we can burn a CD to play in our cars or use our iPod to play DJ at a party.

 

[50548]

Thanks for trying to help the rest of us understand some of these fine points, shamino and BRLawyer. This certainly shows why John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public have trouble understanding what they may and may not do.

Doing income taxes has become so complicated that a large number of people turn theirs over to professionals. Perhaps we all need personal DRM assistants to tell us whether or not we can burn a CD to play in our cars or use our iPod to play DJ at a party.

Worry not, Doctor...the issue is complex enough for us lawyers as well...the problem (and at the same time virtue) of the law is that you are able to interpret a legal text in different manners...this problem is worsened in jurisdictions such as the U.S./UK, where court decisions usually have a stronger influence on subsequent understandings of the law than in other "hard code" jurisdictions.

But as Olsen's asymmetry teaches us, the small groups that shout louder end up reaping the rewards...and big, non-amalgamated masses such as consumers just swallow what is decided by such lobbies...

 

[shamino]

I won't argue all the points, because I don't want this to become a protracted legal debate. I just want people to realize that claims of "you can copy and redistribute anything you want as long as you don't charge money" are probably not correct. Or at the least, the law isn't that simple or obvious.

2) one should bear in mind that section 1008 ALSO mentions analog recordings, in a broader sense than in previous sections; one could imply, thus, that SCMS compliance is NOT necessary for invoking section 1008.

I noticed this, and it does create some problems with my understanding of the law. I assume the authors of AHRA didn't care to restrict analog recordings because these recordings degrade with each generation. This applies a limiting factor to distribution, much like SCMS (although many people will accept the quality of a multi-generation analog copy, so the limit isn't as strict.)

3) lastly, section 1001 defines "digital recording device" without mentioning the SCMS or other DRM schemes.

Again, context is everything here. The full definition of section 1001 (skipping the exceptions, emphasis mine) is:

A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use ...
​

Computer CD-RW drives are not designed for the primary purpose of copying digital audio. They are designed for the primary purpose of reading and writing data files, with audio being an additional capability.

This is why they are not subject to section 1002, which requires all digital audio recording devices to implement SCMS.

By inference, I would assume that the permission granted by section 1008 would not apply to copies made by computers, since a computer drive is not a digital audio recording device. (Or more precisely, if you consider it a digital audio recording device, then it is illegal to manufacture, import or distribute in the US, since it doesn't implement SCMS.)

Of course, I don't think there has ever been a lawsuit over this kind of duplication (for non-commercial redistribution), so all opinions are just that - opinions. Until there are suits and legal decisions, gray areas like this can only be resolved by each individual's sense of right and wrong.

 

[50548]

A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use ...
​

Computer CD-RW drives are not designed for the primary purpose of copying digital audio. They are designed for the primary purpose of reading and writing data files, with audio being an additional capability.

This is why they are not subject to section 1002, which requires all digital audio recording devices to implement SCMS.

Your point above is of course valid, Shamino, and I don't want to extend this boring (at least for non-lawyers) debate as well...

I would just argue that, even in the context highlighted, one could assert that, based on empirical evidence, CD-RW could be classified as "digital audio recording devices". In addition, one of the waivers under 1008 concerns the medium...the same interpretation could apply to recordable CDs, too...but as you said, it's up to case law to clarify this...I just wanted to make it clear that RIAA doesn't carry all reason in this debate...there are two perfectly legitimate sides for interpreting the law (in this case, the U.S. one)...

p.s.: hej, now I am 6502!!! And my first computer was an Apple IIe clone..!

 

[Xeem]

Is he somehow implying that people who own other 'MP3' players don't pirate music?

You beat me to this point. If anything, because iPods have such a convenient, readily-available system for downloading music legally, they probably have one of the lowest ratios of pirated to non-pirated songs on them out of any player. I may have downloaded a few songs in my day (before I ever had an MP3 player), but since the iTunes Music Store was launched (and I bought my iPod Mini and Shuffle) everything I get is legal now.

 

[raster]

To date, I have purchased with money, 1684 ITMS products.
The rest of the music I have on my ipod or Itunes were ripped from CD's I purchased with money.
Mr. Glaser,go **** yourself

 

[pubwvj]

The average number of songs sold for the iPod is 25, and there are many more songs on iPods than 25. About half the music on iPods is music obtained illegitimately either from an illegal peer-to-peer networks or from ripping friends' CDs, which is illegal.

Wow! Is he dumb or what. Just because someone has 50 songs and only downloaded 25 from a legal download service does not mean that the other 25 are illegal. It is perfectly legal to copy the songs from CD's and tapes that I have bought to my Mac and from there to my iPod. That man is thinking with less than half a brain.

 

[InfiniteLoop1]

ok im confused with the whole legal stuff! is it legal for me to borrow my friends CD which he bought and copy it to my computer, as long as i don't give him/her any money for it?
is there a Yes/No answer for this?

 

[PlaidHatter]

Ha, my other 9975 songs are from independant artists, the ones that haven't sold their soul and music to the RIAA. I'm so sick of this illegal collusion force acting like they are the only act in town.

 

[Counterfit]

Glaser should be sued for slander, as he knows **** about the law...

Even in the U.S. with its absurd DMCA, people are still able to share personal copies of lawfully obtained works with family/friends, provided they occur on a non-commercial basis. From the U.S. copyright act:

"§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title 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 jurisdictions such as Brazil, Germany and Switzerland this is even clearer, with freedom for anyone to share on a personal, non-commercial basis (read: shared with close friends and relatives) copyrighted works he/she has lawfully obtained, like a music CD.

I'm pretty sure that only pertains to letting someone borrow the CD/tape/whatever. If they make a copy of it, then that would be infringing. I think.