Slashdot Mirror
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...'"
OK, here is the deal... I just bought over $200 worth of music on CD and I absolutely guarantee that this will be the last music purchase I make from any RIAA backed artist unless they start recognizing fair use. In fact, in the MGM vs Grokster case, the RIAA suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster.
This case appears to be an absolutely clear fair use case. This individual, like hundreds of thousands of others *purchase* music from legal sources and while I just spent the last ten minutes typing out an explanation for why this may be the case, I have realized that we've all heard this ad nauseum. What is it going to take for the shareholders of all these companies to stand up and say enough? What is it going to take before all consumers simply say "enough of this hassle, no more music purchases?" What is it going to take before these people wake up, realize that they need to stop treating their paying customers like criminals? When are they going to realize that rather than litigate against the pirates, they should simply realize that they should compete against them by offering great service for reasonable prices and get rid of all the DRM? There is a reason that music sales are dropping (actually a dozen or so), but if the RIAA and their associated represented companies simply started going back to basics, finding and promoting good talent (there is lots out there) rather than promoting the engineered bands, or what they think should be popular, they could go back to making money. Look, Long Tail economics gives them everything they need to start making more money, even from music in the public domain. Hey, I'd buy music if made available from a huge variety of artists that are currently out of print or have entered the public domain, but are no longer available.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Except that they are claiming that mp3s outside your shared folder are yours, but they are no longer authorized copies once they enter your shared folder?
That's a step beyond claiming that "making available" is piracy, which is a step beyond what most of us accept as piracy.
I do agree with your assessment, though. Nothing is helped by intellectual dishonesty and exaggeration.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Get with the program! (Seriously!)
/.ing is still buying CD's...
It's been +5 years since I bought a CD from a major label, and I know there are many others here who have voted *without* their wallets like I have. (Are you listening, mafIAA??)
I'm surprised that someone with as much exposure to the horror stories as you must have gotten in all your years of
Don't buy things from the music mongers! Support independent artists!!!
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Very good point. Mod parent up! Unauthorized = not authorized.
So the original summary is misleading: The RIAA did not argue that MP3s from CDs are illegal.
The dude was sharing the files via Kazaa. That's what he'll be prosecuted on.
Of course the RIAA are going to claim this and that, but when it comes down to it this dude will be found to have distributed music via Kazaa.
The summary is just more dishonesty by these stupid slashdot people.
Now I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but the following quote:
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs..."
"...Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder..."
and
"...Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
I don't think personal use is the issue - it is the fact he made the recordings potentially public is the problem. I imagine the RIAA will get him on 'unauthorized distribution'.
The guy who did this is pretty stupid - what kind of reaction from the RIAA does he expect?
Pretty much all my music is in some kind of digital form, when I rip cds I certainly don't store them in a sharable folder - it's for my private use.
Then again this is the RIAA this person will probably suffer a ridiculous fine (or jail term?) that can potentially ruin his life (it's only music for christ's sake).
If I knock over someone with my car and kill them I would probably be fined £1000 and incur points on my driving license (or a ban for 12 months).
(Hey it's the old if "it was a car" analogy).
Makes you wonder why they haven't gone after libraries for "making available" yet...
Yet another misleading kdawson post. I haven't had the urge to filter by editor since the JonKatz days, but I think I'm about there again.
Though I don't like this: Second, because online "piracy typically takes place behind closed doors and beyond the watchful eyes of a copyright holder," Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Payne, Case No. W-06-CA-051, slip opinion at 7 (W.D. Texas July 17, 2006) (Exhibit B hereto), Plaintiffs should be allowed to prove actual distribution based on circumstantial evidence. Proof based on circumstantial evidence!?
I don't think I can make this any simpler: Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members. Its easy, they don't seem to want you to buy their product anyway. Music CDs might or might not play, just like they might or might not infect your PC with rootkits. Legal downloads might or might not play on whatever portable device you have, and they probably wont play on your next one, or your next PC, so what are you spending your money on anyway? Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members.
The RIAA gets its funding from the big labels in addition to these racketeering activities. As SCO has so thoroughly demonstrated, suing your customers is not a sustainable business plan. Cut off the other source of revenue: Music Sales, and they will eventually wither away and die. I am not condoning piracy here, and as a musician its hard to advocate intentionally killing off an industry I've spent a significant part of my life studying, but it simply must be done. It is the only way to rid the planet of what has become a blight on the world. Only then can something better rise up to fill the void. It is a sacrifice we all have to make for the greater good.
Theres a theme here: Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members.
How can you tell whether music is from an artist represented by the RIAA?
Maybe we should ask for a labeling requirement on all music (CD, on-line, radio) indicating whether the music comes from an RIAA artist or not.
Well, what you propose is IMHO no different than the prisoner's dilemma, only scaled to some millions of people. And it just doesn't scale.
The mechanics are just like in the prisoner's dilemma, really. With two people it's just "am I sure that my pal will do the same? or am I shooting myself in the foot?" Which boils down to how well you know him, I guess. There have been plenty of people who've been surprised there. With millions of people, it becomes "am I sure that all these millions will do the same? or am I just the idiot depriving himself of something, while everyone else doesn't give a damn?" Since you don't know them all, the latter becomes the far safer bet. And you know they'll think the same.
Briefly, if your rights depend on some tens of millions of other people doing the same thing, you've already lost them. Isolated individuals are insecure, weak, vulnerable, easy prey for FUD, etc.
No, what most of the world discovered a long time ago, is that you need some laws if you're against something.
E.g., if you want, say, the factories to stop polluting rivers, you need a law that forbids that or at least gives them a cost feedback for it. Because just hoping that everyone will suddenly say "well, I'll refuse to work for anyone who pollutes, or buy their products" just doesn't work.
Same here. If you don't like copyright law and the loopholes/privileges/whatever it gives to the RIAA, then have that law changed. Just hoping that millions of independent people will individually decide to boycott them, never worked, never will.
Or at the very least, get organized. If you want people to stand up for something, at personal cost or inconvenience, see the prisoner's dilemma again: they have to be sure that everyone else, or at least enough others, do the same thing. Plus, it gets you taken more seriously by the other side you're negotiating with. A group of a million or two sworn to never buy CDs until fair use is respected, has some bargaining power. Isolated individuals whining separately do not.
The last paragraph is why unions appeared. Much as that seems to be a swearword for many nerds.
Or before them such things as the guilds or medieval communes. Isolated burghers were no match for the noble of the land. A whole city standing together for their rights, well, now that got taken a bit more seriously.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Don't forget that Fair Use, like self defense, is an affirmative defense.
When you get sued/accused by the copyright holder, you reply "Yea I did, but it's Fair Use."
So really, the issue of creating MP3s is entirely separate from distributing them.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Uh, no. If anything, the fact that MP3s degrade the signal quality is BETTER grounds for fair use, not worse. It's comparable to the precedents of VHS recordings of TV programs and cassette tape recordings of CDs and radio programs, which are 100% legal under fair use provisions.
1. Defendant copies files (the copying).
2. Defendant put the files in a shared folder on his HDD.
3. 2. invalidates his fair-use right to 1.
Note that this argument does NOT require that he actually distributed any of the songs, or even connect to another computer.
You get rulings on this sort of stuff with a defendant that does NOT have a lawyer, then cite the precedent for those who do.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
In fact, they make it really easy: Universal Music Group and Warner both have 'official' channels. All you need to do is subscribe to those channels, and they'll tell you every time they post a new video that they're promoting. Here are the links:
Warner: http://www.youtube.com/user/warnerbrosrecords
Universal Music Group: http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
Also, if you go to the videos link from their main label page, you can often catch new videos that they're trying to release quietly without much fanfare, since they know they probably won't do very well.
I've noticed that everytime a story is submitted with an egriously misleading headline, nine times out of ten it's a story submitted by kdawson. I know Slashdot isn't trying to be the New York Times, but I wonder how long they're going to let this hack stay on as an editor.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
The recording companies are not out there for any artistic, moral, or aesthetic purpose. They are there to make money. They do tons of market research to determine who buys their stuff, and then they cater to those people. They are no different than any other company. It just so happens that most buyers are teenage brats who burn their allowances on $20 CDs. These brats have money, worry about being fashionable and cool, and they spend their money to be such. Through creative advertising and marketing, the recording companies team up with clothing companies and other people to bring forth a product that makes people look "cool".
I would argue that the RIAA is correct in the following way: it costs just as much to make a CD with a pop band as it does one with a "better" band. In both cases, they pay the band, pay for studio time, and the engineers who produce the final product. They then pay for the CDs to get printed, distribution of said CDs, and for advertising of their new releases. Even a fool can see that it's much better to spend, say, a million dollars on some drivel that tons of high school cheerleaders will buy, than to spend a million on something eight bloggers will order from their mothers' basement PCs. You see, the cheerleaders will also buy the clothes, shoes, and other associated crap.
Watch one episode of Run's House and see how Russell Simmons and Rev Run make money. You'll see that they really can set the tone of what is "cool" in this country, and they do. They don't argue about being artsy-fartsy, giving small groups a big chance, or DRM! They just make money. There's no moral issue there...it's just business.
I just popped a CD into my drive and iTunes asked me if I want to add it to my music library. Upon clicking yes, the application created mp3 files on my hard drive and shared them with all my coworkers without warning me about making unauthorized copies. I hear that's also the main source of music in most people's iPods. So why not sue Apple rather than going after the small fish?
Because, when you start suing the small fish directly with devastating results, the other small fish are far more likely to play by your rules to keep themselves safe. Fear is much more powerful tool than severely reducing the available supply. People will always find ways around supply problems by going through black market channels to get it. As long as there is a demand, there will always be illegitimate suppliers.
8==8 Bones 8==8
If so, then yes the *AA is correct, IF this is stated in the license when you bought the cd.
But i hadnt heard that fair use was finally struck down ( it will be, just give it time ), and i dont remember any contract that specifically stated i cant rip for personal use.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is going to be unkind, but...
Up your ass with a splintered fiddle you riaa bastards and bitches...
Disks WEAR OUT. You think I'm going to keep replacing player-scratched media? I have finally, for the first time in my life, bought an MP3 player in Nov 07, and I have years worth of CDs I PURCHASED, and some from the net, but I don't have any habit of burning and selling or even giving away to more than 3 people EVER.
Call it space-shifting if you want, but it helps reduce wear and tear on my computer when I listen to 25 hours of music over the weekend. My CDs are in MY possession, and you're lucky I paid for THOSE, considering they are 5-25 times more expensive than they OUGHT to be. Worse, the MUSICIANS are being screwed (not just because they stupidly signed with a label that screws them in contract but) because you REFUSE to reward them for what they are worth. If I could figure out HOW to directly compensate them, I would, and just bypass your asses.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This is another sick ploy by the record industry to abolish companies such as Apple's iTunes, Microsoft is just as guilty then by producing the Zune, and every other MP3 player out there is designed to encourage copyright theft. The very presence of XM and Serius radio is violation because of the conversion that takes place to broadcast.
Another dirty ploy by the RIAA to cloud up things enough to help guarantee them a win because of the confusion of terms to the jury. Or; at least that is what they are hoping for.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.