RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an Arizona case against a defendant who has no legal representation, Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA is now arguing — contrary to its lawyers' statements to the United States Supreme Court in 2005 MGM v. Grokster — that the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. At page 15 of its brief (PDF) it states the following: '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...'"

Comments

Re:Fair enough...

[Jarnin]

Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format... they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

Here they are saying that ripping a CD to MP3 format is the creation of an 'unauthorized copy'. Technically, any copy not obtained from the plaintiff is unauthorized because they didn't distribute it.

and they [MP3s] are in his shared folder... Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.

Here they are saying that this guy had his MP3s in his KaZaa shared folder, which is technically unauthorized distribution.

This is news?

[urcreepyneighbor]

Scream "fair use" and "backing up" all you want, but you don't have a "right" to rip a CD.

Most CDs clearly state something to the effect of: Unauthorized duplication prohibited.

That includes ripping and making a copy - both fall under the "duplication" part, you see.

Not saying I agree with the situation, but you can't deny reality.

Go ahead and mod me to hell because I've gone against what you want to hear. :)