This is getting a little out of control (RIAA)

[pixelhead]

From Mac NN

MacNN | RIAA claims CD rips are piracy in lawsuit

RIAA claims CD rips are piracy in lawsuit


Converting music CDs to audio files on a computer is unapproved and therefore illegal, the Recording Industry Association of America has said (PDF) in a brief ahead of a crucial Arizona lawsuit. Hoping to support the arguments from group member Atlantic Records in its complaint against the Howell family, the RIAA contends that ripping CDs leads to "viral" copyright infringement; a single disc can result in millions of copies if shared through a peer-to-peer service, the brief claims.

The statement partly contradicts the RIAA's previous stance on the subject. Although the group is careful in the current case to make a separation between illegal file sharing and "space-shifting," or accessing a user's own songs to a different device for listening outside of a regular location, it argues that any transfer of songs that has not been explicitly approved is illegal. This appears to challenge a previous argument the RIAA itself made in front of the US Supreme Court when elaborating its position on legal use of digital music in a suit against the file sharing service Grokster.

"It's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, [and] put it onto your iPod," music label representatives said at the time. "There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward."

The defendants, Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, have up to January 11th to respond to the brief ahead of a hearing on January 24th.

[andsonic]

Interesting. How does the RIAA explain their postion when it directly contradicts Federal Law: Audio Home Recording Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, people should pay for music, but this is ridiculous. There is decades of precedent for the making of fair use copies. This has been enshrined in law. What is the RIAA up to?

They would never do it but I would love to hear/read a reasoned explanation to the above position. RIAA reps: Can you explain your position to a layman who creates the product you supposedly protect?

[YZ!]

I am against "sharing" what you do not own.

That said, I find RIAA's position similar to demanding that every person who buys or owns a crowbar be prosecuted for attempted breaking and entering.

[ignatius]

they must have hired gene simmons as a consultant.

[KingDaddyO]

The RIAA are just another busload of litigous, greedy & desperate, corporate assclowns, who don't seem to have a clue or an ounce of integrity.

But that shouldn't be surprising, since we already know how they feel about their customers, or perhaps I should say, their growing number of former customers.

[Neruk]

The RIAA just sued me for throwing a party and playing music out loud. My guests didnt have the legal rights to listen to the songs.

[PhilR]

People should pay for music. But I suspect the RIAA doesn't really care about that. They just want you to pay. And if they don't give you anything in return, well thats just fine too.

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by Neruk

The RIAA just sued me for throwing a party and playing music out loud. My guests didnt have the legal rights to listen to the songs.

LOL

The really sad thing is that this ridiculous & extreme scenario, isn't an unimaginable one. Logic would dictate that if they continue to raise ... I mean, LOWER the bar, with these shameless machinations ... then this end game scenario isn't too many steps away.

[richardswag]

Originally Posted by Neruk

The RIAA just sued me for throwing a party and playing music out loud. My guests didnt have the legal rights to listen to the songs.

Did anyone in the UK see this?

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios

..where a garage are being sued by the PRS such that "music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.

It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright."

Now, I love the PRS in principle - 60% of my income comes through them and their hard work, but for f**k's sake...

[mdme_sadie]

Way to turn us into the enemy... these "people" do far more harm than good and any musician, engineer, producer or even record label would do well to distance themselves as much as possible from the incredibly damaging actions of these radical extremists.

[lowfreq33]

They're killing their credibility with this kind of crap. Every time they pull something like this downloading goes up. Way to piss off your target demographic. Are they planning on suing Apple next?

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by richardswag

Did anyone in the UK see this?

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios

..where a garage are being sued by the PRS such that "music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.

It is maintained that amounts to the "playing" or "performance" of the music in public and renders the firm guilty of infringing copyright."

Now, I love the PRS in principle - 60% of my income comes through them and their hard work, but for f**k's sake...

Incredible. I do understand why they wouldn't want (or allow) a business to knowingly get a free ride using their artists content ... but come on! - car mechanics playing their radios while working on vehicles. WTF!!?? I suppose they aren't allowed also, to play their bought & paid for CDs, on their bought & paid for boom boxes?

Honestly, here's my solution: KEEP YER DAMN RADIO SIGNALS OFF OF MY PROPERTY. I DON'T WANT THEM, NOR DID I EVER ASK YOU TO PROVIDE THEM.

UNTIL YOU REMOVE THEM AS I HAVE REQUESTED, I WILL CONSIDER THEM AS UNSOLICITED GIFTS, WHICH I CAN DO WITH AS I PLEASE.

WHAT? YOU DON'T AGREE. THEN YOU CAN TALK TO MY LAWYERS.

[severe]

Illegal, huh?

So.. I'm a criminal?

I'm seriously thinking about suing the RIAA for defamation. As a professional, I have a reputation to uphold.


Who's with me?

[PoorGlory]

I'm in the process of ripping my entire CD collection (approx 900 CDs) to a single 500 gig hard drive. Why? Because I'm sick of CDs getting beat up and becoming unplayable, seeing as I travel a ton for work and I'm always either in the car, van, plane, or train. Beat up, unplayable CDs means I have to buy them again.

But why?

Hey RIAA.... I thought we didn't own what we payed for. I thought that we simply bought a personal entertainment license for that albums worth of material. Shouldn't I get a free copy or at least a free (copy-protected of course) download if I ruin mine, since I already paid for it?

But no.... they are hypocrites with a fractured business model. I will rip everything to mp3 (no less than 320 kbps) so I don't have to give they any more money than I need to.

[videoteque]

Acting like this they get the opposite effect of what they supposedly want... tutt

[Ironklad Audio]

what really kills me is that the record industry is spending so much time and effort trying to steer the legal system into supporting its withering business model, when they should be spending their time/money/effort COMING UP WITH A NEW BUSINESS MODEL!!

jesus christ, if sharon osborne can manage to make money off of ozzfest without charging the concertgoers a dime for their tickets, i don't understand why record labels can't figure out how to still make money selling albums.

but...whatever. let them file their suit - this one is obviously going to get tossed out, and the record labels' image will be more tarnished than ever. maybe they'll start getting creative when they can't afford to pay the lawyers anymore.

[celticrogues]

Seems to me that if its illegal to rip CDs onto your computer, there is even less reason for the general public to continue buying CDs at all... RIAA might want to rethink that one

-Mike

[lhm1138]

Originally Posted by Neruk

The RIAA just sued me for throwing a party and playing music out loud. My guests didnt have the legal rights to listen to the songs.

No, that would be ASCAP. LOL.

[lhm1138]

Originally Posted by richardswag

Did anyone in the UK see this?

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | Kwik-Fit sued over staff radios

..where a garage are being sued by the PRS such that "music, protected by copyright, could be heard by colleagues and customers.

This is a large part of why you hear Muzak in so many doctor's offices and businesses in the United States. ASCAP or BMI apparently went after some of them for playing albums or the radio.

[lhm1138]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

Hey RIAA.... I thought we didn't own what we payed for. I thought that we simply bought a personal entertainment license for that albums worth of material. Shouldn't I get a free copy or at least a free (copy-protected of course) download if I ruin mine, since I already paid for it?

But no.... they are hypocrites with a fractured business model. I will rip everything to mp3 (no less than 320 kbps) so I don't have to give they any more money than I need to.

Hey, that's a really good point.

Can you imagine if the RIAA came up with its own music download site, and said "Hey, if you have old CDs that don't play anymore, enter the barcode at our site and you can download a 320kbps version for 25 cents a track." As much as they bitched about used CD sales and lost revenue, this could've been an excellent way to generate "lost sales". Most people are generally lazy or time-strapped and don't want to go through the hassle of ripping their CDs or searching torrents that might be the album, might be something else.

[Lee]

I own everything on my iPod. This is ridiculous.

[The Byre]

Rather like Monty Python's parrot, the CD as a stand-alone, mass-market is dead.

The industry can "rage against the storm" until it is blue in the face, but it is dead.

The Victorian penny song-sheet is dead. It is not dead because of illegal copying, it is dead because nobody wants it anymore. The RIAA can litigate against every consumer in America, but the CD will remain just as dead.

The song sheet is still with us for some things, but as a mass market product, it was replaced by the 78. The CD is being replaced by the DVD concert video as a mass market product and now the CD is either a free give-away, a $2 junk product in the impulse buy baskets at Walmart, or something bundled with a DVD.

The RIAA may try to nail it to the perch, but it is no more.

[Jamie Matrix]

Originally Posted by lhm1138

Hey, that's a really good point.

Can you imagine if the RIAA came up with its own music download site, and said "Hey, if you have old CDs that don't play anymore, enter the barcode at our site and you can download a 320kbps version for 25 cents a track." As much as they bitched about used CD sales and lost revenue, this could've been an excellent way to generate "lost sales". Most people are generally lazy or time-strapped and don't want to go through the hassle of ripping their CDs or searching torrents that might be the album, might be something else.

And the very next day there'd be a website up listing the barcode number of every album ever made!

I'm often surprised when threads like this come up by the violent reaction against any kind of copyright enforcement efforts by the RIAA/others. One would imagine that there's a good few people here who derive their income from selling music so I don't know why there's quite so much sympathy for people who are being prosecuted for stealing music. Yes, in the case of the Kwik-Fit garage being prosecuted -as mentioned earlier -that is bordering on the ridiculous but I have a great deal less sympathy for somebody being prosecuted for sharing music over p2p networks, as is the case here.

The reality in this case appears to be that they are using the 'CD rip' argument as a means to go after somebody who is using Kazaa to illegally share music. I very much doubt that there is any intention whatsoever to prosecute somebody who is just ripping their CD collection to their iPod. It's just a legal technicality and I for one do not have much of a problem with that.

[Ironklad Audio]

i understand the RIAA's desire to protect their copyrighted material

HOWEVER...it is already illegal to share copyrighted material over the internet. if you have a file-sharing program on your computer, and place copyrighted files in a folder that allows other to access it, you're breaking the law - this has been upheld over and over again in the courts.

but now they're trying to say that ANY sort of ripping onto a computer is illegal, be it for the purpose of sharing or not. they're trying to make it so that putting music that you paid for onto your computer, even if it has no internet connection, is a crime. that's total bullshit, and i'd be really surprised if the courts allow this argument to fly. whether they intend to prosecute people for doing so or not doesn't matter; the fact is, they're trying to restrict a fairly basic and commonplace act that has been specifically upheld by the laws that are on the books.

I'm in the process of ripping my entire CD collection (approx 900 CDs) to a single 500 gig hard drive. Why? Because I'm sick of CDs getting beat up and becoming unplayable, seeing as I travel a ton for work and I'm always either in the car, van, plane, or train. Beat up, unplayable CDs means I have to buy them again.

But why?

Hey RIAA.... I thought we didn't own what we payed for. I thought that we simply bought a personal entertainment license for that albums worth of material. Shouldn't I get a free copy or at least a free (copy-protected of course) download if I ruin mine, since I already paid for it?

But no.... they are hypocrites with a fractured business model. I will rip everything to mp3 (no less than 320 kbps) so I don't have to give they any more money than I need to.

here's another scenario...

this last january, some shithead kid broke into my car and lit it on fire. the vehicle was destroyed...a total, 100% loss. i had 30+ albums in the car, all of which were completely destroyed, although the jewel cases were(and still are) in my house. now, IMO, i believe that it should be perfectly legal to download those albums from the internet...they were bought and paid for, which i can provide physical proof of, and my ability to play them was hampered by the criminal act of another person.

BUT...if you asked the lawyers for the RIAA, they'd probably tell you that i'm a thief. these guys seriously need to get a clue, because they're digging their own graves at this point.

[Jamie Matrix]

Yes but isn't it best to focus on the practical real world implications of this kind of thing and not the theoretical. The INTENTION of this action is surely not to prevent honest consumers from copying their purchased CD collection onto their computer/iPod. This would be TOTALLY unenforceable in the real world anyway. As I said before, I would think that this is merely a legal strategy with which they are hoping to prosecute somebody for illegal file sharing. What exactly is so morally wrong with that?

As you say though (Ironklad), whether they can make this argument successfully in court is another matter.

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by Ironklad Audio

here's another scenario...

this last january, some shithead kid broke into my car and lit it on fire. the vehicle was destroyed...a total, 100% loss. i had 30+ albums in the car, all of which were completely destroyed, although the jewel cases were(and still are) in my house. now, IMO, i believe that it should be perfectly legal to download those albums from the internet...they were bought and paid for, which i can provide physical proof of, and my ability to play them was hampered by the criminal act of another person.

BUT...if you asked the lawyers for the RIAA, they'd probably tell you that i'm a thief. these guys seriously need to get a clue, because they're digging their own graves at this point.

You know, if any of my other possesions get destroyed in a fire or stolen, I pay to have them replaced (whether or not insurance covers it). If I have a statue of a goat smoking a joint, I own that statue. I can do whatever I want with it... I can take a picture of it, make a plaster cast of it, charge admission to see it, etc etc. If it gets stolen/destroyed, I can pay for another one to replace it.

But I don't own the contents of a CD. I bought and paid for the privilege of listening to it for personal use and I cannot use that physical item any way I see fit. Why should my license die with the physical copy? If I truly own that physical copy, stop telling me what I can and can't do with it. If I don't, then replace my shit when it gets stolen or destroyed since I paid legally and fairly for the right to listen to it.

I can't believe record company executives still make as much money as they do. They really should be making as much money as a CVS store manager or a tire salesman.

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by Jamie Matrix

Yes but isn't it best to focus on the practical real world implications of this kind of thing and not the theoretical. The INTENTION of this action is surely not to prevent honest consumers from copying their purchased CD collection onto their computer/iPod. This would be TOTALLY unenforceable in the real world anyway. As I said before, I would think that this is merely a legal strategy with which they are hoping to prosecute somebody for illegal file sharing. What exactly is so morally wrong with that?

As you say though (Ironklad), whether they can make this argument successfully in court is another matter.

The problem is that it creates an insanely irrational legal precedent that actually goes completely against arguments they have made in the past.

You do know there's a surcharge on CD-R's labeled for "music" right? That surcharge goes to the RIAA, the same way a surcharge on blank cassettes went to them as a way of compensating for tape trading and mix tapes. They're trying to double dip.

[Jamie Matrix]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

The problem is that it creates an insanely irrational legal precedent that actually goes completely against arguments they have made in the past.

You do know there's a surcharge on CD-R's labeled for "music" right? That surcharge goes to the RIAA, the same way a surcharge on blank cassettes went to them as a way of compensating for tape trading and mix tapes. They're trying to double dip.

The people in this case (the Howell's) have ALLEGEDLY ripped the CD's into their Kazaa SHARED FOLDER and illegally shared them over a p2p network. That is the point here. I quite agree that the rationality of the LEGAL ARGUMENT on a technical level may be problematic but I fully support the intention behind it -even if it is a battle that can never be won. That really is the only point that I was trying to make.

Assuming that these people are guilty of the alleged offence then I am quite happy for them to be hit with a fine. It's total nonsense for them to claim that they were just innocently making a backup/convenience copy on their computer and then "oh look, I've just installed Kazaa and accidentally distributed this copyright music that was accidentally in my shared folder".

I'm not sure that your argument on the CD-R surcharge holds water. I mean if they had a surcharge on internet connection fees then yes you could say that they were "trying to double dip" but they don't so I don't see that as a related issue.

[Jamie Matrix]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

I can't believe record company executives still make as much money as they do. They really should be making as much money as a CVS store manager or a tire salesman.

Well you may have a point here but what exactly is the difference between record company executives and highly paid executives/actors/sports people/musicians/fashion designers/chefs or people in ANY OTHER BUSINESS who get paid a lot of money? Furthermore, many of these people appear to be being laid off due, in part no doubt, because of the impact of illegal file sharing.

[joelpatterson]

I want to create a whole new legal theory... just because you're copying files, putting them in folders, blah blah blah... can they really proved you LISTENED TO THEM?

So, sure, there's some kind of registry that shows how many plays... but can they prove I didn't HAVE THE SOUND TURNED OFF?

And if I didn't actually LISTEN to them... no crime has been committed!

Your witness...