Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.
The quote says it all. Taken out of context? Nope. Is that what Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, really thinks? Yes. That was her testimony in court, which as far as I can recall is under oath.
And when you think about it, this is a really stupid idea. Why? Just read these digg comments:
From PistolFred -
I have 2 physical hard drives on my PC. I've copied the music folder from one to the other as a backup. (I know, a power surge or malicious virus could kill them both). By her definition, I stole those songs even if they are still only accessible from a single device.
From Lukesed -
I'm using a RAID array that makes two copies of everything on a pretty low level. Is tht stealing as well?
And what happens when you continue along that line of thought? Madness. Absolute madness.
From dfick -
It's stealing when the mp3 is loaded from the Harddisk to DRAM, and stealing again for each level of cache.
From ToadLeg -
I had to "copy" a song to my speakers in order to listen to it. Did I just steal that song by copying it to my speakers?
The last comment takes the cake not only because it's true according to that twisted theory but also because you can't legally listen to your music at all, if that idea were true. Maybe you should start dumping your CDs and switch over to the radio. Or is that stealing too?
[Source: Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" @ Ars Technica]