RIAA: CD Ripping For Personal Use Now 'Unauthorized'

[Diamond45]

Someone needs to rip the RIAA a new asshole...

From AllAccess.com (Tuesday 12/11/07):

RIAA: CD Ripping For Personal Use Now 'Unauthorized'
Tech and P2P-friendly websites are aflame with news that the RIAA has filed a brief in an Arizona U.S. District Court against JEFFREY and PAMELA HOWELL which claims that ripping CDs to mp3s is a violation of copyright laws and the fair use doctrine. In other words, ripping tunes from a CD to an iPod are "unauthorized."

On page 15 of its brief, the RIAA asserts: "It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies ... Virtually all of the sound recordings ... are in the 'mp3' format for his and his wife's use ... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies..."

According to SWITCHED.COM, that contradicts the RIAA's own arguments made in the 2005 MGM Vs. GROCKSTER case. At that time, A RIAA rep stated that making digital copies of music for personal use was protected.

 

[jkohn]

I think the key phrase there is "and they are in a shared folder".

Making copies in any format for strictly personal use is legal, no matter how much the RIAA would like it to be otherwise. But once you make those copies available to other people, you're violating copyright law.

 

[KaptainKrude]

I think the key phrase there is "and they are in a shared folder".

Making copies in any format for strictly personal use is legal, no matter how much the RIAA would like it to be otherwise. But once you make those copies available to other people, you're violating copyright law.

And what if said shared folder is on a home network where files are accessed from multiple machines and not distributed to anyone outside said network?

 

[Metaldrumz]

LOL! Ahhhh more comical relief from the RIAA.

 

[Jibrille]

I think the key phrase there is "and they are in a shared folder".

Making copies in any format for strictly personal use is legal, no matter how much the RIAA would like it to be otherwise. But once you make those copies available to other people, you're violating copyright law.

The way I read it and as has been mentioned, they seem to be going after them for having a shared folder across their own network. I have that same setup at my house. I have a desktop computer with all my music on it that both myself and my fiance have access to through our laptops. It's a secure network that no one else can get on to without the password.

 

[J-Dubya 777]

I think the RIAA has just stepped into a pile of dogshit that now towers over their head. I'm curious as to whether said shared drive is on a private network, or is in the shares folder of a P2P client. If it's a home network, they are WAY overstepping their bounds, and will look even more foolish than they did before...

 

[rockyracoon]

I think the key phrase there is "and they are in a shared folder".

Making copies in any format for strictly personal use is legal, no matter how much the RIAA would like it to be otherwise. But once you make those copies available to other people, you're violating copyright law.

So am I breaking the law when I purchase a CD and then burn a copy for someone else? Not that I really care since I'll continue doing it, but I laugh at the idea of someone being prosecuted for that.


How long until the RIAA is prosecuting people simply for "overhearing" music they didn't themselves pay for?

 

[skyrefuge]

c'mon people, think! When you see a controversial quote with a bunch of "..." in it, it means there's a 90% chance that the person showing you the quote is trying to trick you into believing something that just isn't true.

Reading the actual SOURCE document, it's entirely about sharing mp3s on KaZaA. Not on your own computer, or a home network. That seems like a reasonable thing for the RIAA to be bothered about.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

Neil

 

[Sumeet]

c'mon people, think! When you see a controversial quote with a bunch of "..." in it, it means there's a 90% chance that the person showing you the quote is trying to trick you into believing something that just isn't true.

Reading the actual SOURCE document, it's entirely about sharing mp3s on KaZaA. Not on your own computer, or a home network. That seems like a reasonable thing for the RIAA to be bothered about.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

Neil

Holy crap, dude! You actually expect me to wade through an entire legal brief to ferret out these details!? No thanks! I'll take the "..." filled blurb any day!

It was clear though that there was something deeper to this.. I mean, even if they had a problem with it, how would the RIAA find out that Jeffrey and Pamela Howell of Arizona are copying CD's to their computer or portable player?

Still... after looking at the legal brief you linked to, I think a much more important issue comes to light: who the hell uses KaZaA anymore???

 

[rms]

This is ridiculous. lol.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

Still... after looking at the legal brief you linked to, I think a much more important issue comes to light: who the hell uses KaZaA anymore???

Just for shits-n-giggles, I went and looked up KaZaA on Wikipedia. Seems like hardly anybody uses it anymore.

Anyway, also in the Wikipedia article, I found this tidbig:

Following that ruling in favor of the plaintiff labels and studios, Grokster almost immediately settled the case. Shortly thereafter, on 27 July 2006, it was announced that Sharman had also settled with the record industry and motion picture studios. As part of that settlement, the company agreed to pay $100 million in damages to the four major music companies—Universal Music, Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music—and an undisclosed amount to the studios. Sharman also agreed to convert Kazaa into a legal music download service.

This really begs the question though. I just wonder how much of that $100 million in settlement did the actual artists or anybody else that had direct involvement in creating and producing the music actually saw? I would not be surprised if it was very little, if any.

The RIAA claims they are out "protecting the artists" and other such fluffery. All they are doing is trying to protect their own greedy ways.

Also, as somebody already pointed out, regardless of what the RIAA says or wants you to think, copying CDs to MP3 or making a copy for the car, etc are perfectly legal under current copyright law. However, obviously, once you start making files available over the internet, that is indeed a horse of another color.

However, 'jibrille' does bring up an interesting question, as I also do the same thing, is just how legal is making music available for sharing over a private home network? Although the law may not completely agree, but I honestly can't see any real harm if the copying/sharing was limited to the immediate household, ie, the wife making a copy of the husband's CD so she can listen to it in the car. Younger brother ripping a copy of older brother's album to his own iPod so he can listen to it on the school bus, etc. Husband streaming music down to his basement workshop while wife listen to same music while quilting upstairs in her studio (my parents do this). The technology to do this is readily unavailable and surprisingly easy to setup. Hell, even iTunes even lets you do this!

 

[jkohn]

The way I read it and as has been mentioned, they seem to be going after them for having a shared folder across their own network. I have that same setup at my house. I have a desktop computer with all my music on it that both myself and my fiance have access to through our laptops. It's a secure network that no one else can get on to without the password.

And how exactly would the RIAA know that they are sharing these files in a home network that isn't visible to the outside world? That's just silly.

 

[EJC_74]

My friend was tellng me recently that Sony Music & some other asswipes were TRYING desperately to make this thing go through as a law! I agree it's BS! Who the fuck are they to tell you you have to buy the same songs twice just to make ringtones for phones, or MP3's for your iPod or whatever MP3 player you use. Or even an MP3 CD for your car as I do! Fuck them! It's this McCarthy-ism like control that our government is trying to enforce on us, much like King George w/his illegal wiretapping the country, & tapping your E-mails! They wanna control everything you do, say, hear! & of course this $$ is all going to the RIAA! Or at the very least, most of it!

& not to mention the shitty-ass Windows Vista which makes this virtually impossible to copy songs onto your PC, & then transfer said MP3's to another Vista system! Fuck DRM, & fuck Bill Gate$!

 

[shaq]

So am I breaking the law when I purchase a CD and then burn a copy for someone else? Not that I really care since I'll continue doing it, but I laugh at the idea of someone being prosecuted for that.

I seriously hope you're kidding.

 

[rockyracoon]

I seriously hope you're kidding.

No, not kidding at all. I'm not talking about buying a CD, burning a few hundred copies, and then distributing them. I'm talking about buying a CD and burning a copy for my gf, friend, brother, etc. If that's considered wrong...

 

[nailz]

You're giving away intellectual property to others for no compensation to the copyright holders, of course it's wrong. It's like buying one loaf of bread, but thinking it's OK to go back into the store whenever you want for more bread because you ran out of the first loaf.

Does the internet breed ignorance or just attract it?

 

[nailz]

How long until the RIAA is prosecuting people simply for "overhearing" music they didn't themselves pay for?

Oh, you mean exactly like this?

 

[shaq]

You're giving away intellectual property to others for no compensation to the copyright holders, of course it's wrong. It's like buying one loaf of bread, but thinking it's OK to go back into the store whenever you want for more bread because you ran out of the first loaf.

Does the internet breed ignorance or just attract it?

Thank you, I was thinking I had gone delusional or something

 

[rockyracoon]

Thank you, I was thinking I had gone delusional or something

OK, well then perhaps I just buy a CD and let my friend, gf, brother, etc borrow that CD. I suppose I should send someone a check for that too, huh? Gimme a break. To support people actually buying CD's rather than downloading them is a relevant and worthwhile idea. Prosecuting people for burning a copy of something is just ridiculous, which is why I couldn't care less. Apparently I'm ignorant for not seeing things the way some on this forum do. According to some, and potentially the RIAA, in the future the only legal way to enjoy music that you yourself didn't actually create will be by following these simple steps:


1. Purchase CD.
2. Don't let anyone else view the cover art, or they'll owe the cover artist some royalties of some sort.
3. Be sure no one else can hear it when you play it, because then you are giving something away for free.
4. By no means rip the CD onto your computer and share it on a closed network within the confines of your own home.
5. Don't even think about loading it onto your ipod or mp3 player, thats illegal.
6. Does your friend wanna check out a band you like? Tough shit, inform said friend they must purchase the CD, and that burning a copy will only bring down the strong hand of the RIAA on both of you.
7. Find a soundproof room and quietly listen to your new purchase, alone, just to be sure that you've not violated any of the soon to be millions of bullshit guidelines you must abide by when you purchase a CD.

 

[shaq]

OK, well then perhaps I just buy a CD and let my friend, gf, brother, etc borrow that CD. I suppose I should send someone a check for that too, huh?

There's a huge difference between making copies for people and letting them borrow it. Since you cannot see that, this argument is clearly not worth continuing. I'm not some fanatical "never download or make copies" person (which is why your gross exaggeration in that list is beyond retarded), but apparently you think purchasing an album gives you the right to distribute copies to whomever you please. Anyway, like I said, this isn't worth continuing so I'll stop there.