Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs
mrneutron2003 writes "With this past week's announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The RIAA, would begin changing its tune. Instead, they are pressing on in their campaign against consumers by suing individuals who merely rip CDs they've purchased legally. 'The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.'"
"fair use". Happy suing, RIAA- you don't stand a chance.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Vindicated again.
Mandatory pay-per-play is their next move. Then criminalization. Once that is complete, the industry will collapse and they will be gone and out of our hair.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Or if I can't make each breath you take illegal, I at least want a 5-cent royalty. I figure I should be a trillionaire by noon.
Greed, greed, nothing but greed. Hello USA: how long will you tolerate this?
This is total insanity, and really begs the question what on earth do you pay for when you buy a CD now? Next they'll be telling us we can only play CDs on specific CD players, at volumes which don't allow others to hear the recording, and then force us to pay royalties if the tune gets stuck in our heads...
Are they gonna sue me for the cassettes I made in the day of the LP and cassettes in the car?
Same idea, different generation.
"the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer." - Washingtonpost.com. Surely then Microsoft is facilitating copyright infringement by adding the rip feature to Mediaplayer?
What always surprises me a little is that none of the people they're suing have opened fire in the RIAA offices. While that would be horrible and I can't condone the taking of innocent lives (such as the Pepsi machine refill guy who happens to be there at that moment), I'm still kind of amazed that nobody's done it.
Seriously, though, how do those cretins sleep at night? Even if they don't care about the lives they've destroyed, surely they care about the idea that someone might want revenge. I could imagine someone who loses their house because they ripped a CD might feel like they don't have a lot more to lose.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Even in the UK where we don't have fair use provisions, no copyright holder would risk taking a case like this to court. The copyright holder has already been compensated, so long as the works are for private use and not redistributed there's no case for infringement.
Oh well. At some point, it's going to be too expensive for the RIAA to keep their lawyers supplied with crack.
What's next, deathsquads for humming unlicensed tunes?
This is the sig that says NI (again)
According to their flawed logic I would assume that they would also deem music stored on mp3 players as illegal copies too. How many of those RIAA execs do you think own an mp3 player? They are taking things entirely too far. What's next? Suing everyone who owns a computer? This is horrible.
Taken to a logical conclusion, this means that remembering a song is a copyright violation.
Well, if we didnt already know, check out this gem from the article:
The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.
This is so ridiculous that it would be funny, but I fear they are completely serious about it...
It's time for the consumers to show them a little 'voting with your feet' action. I absolutely refuse to buy even one more new CD until these asshats stop filing lawsuits against their customers for making use of their fair use rights. If I pay you for the fucking CD, then I have the right to listen to it on my mp3 player. Hell, while we're at it, if I pay for the DVD I have a right to watch it on my media player. If the RIAA and the MPAA try to prevent me... Then you don't get another dime of my money. It is just that simple.
I have now completely lost all my belief in mankind. This interesting new business model seems to be catching on to more and more business as they grow: the customer is your enemy.
Business has been reduced to spreadsheets with no touch with what the actual core business is. Sure, just outsource the core business and let the patents and lawsuits roll!
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
"In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
/. title does not exaggerate....
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings."
Yes, the
RIAA already said ripping one's own CD is stealing before. Heck, the RIAA even sue the dead people.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4587.html
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
It seems that defendant Howell kept a library of MP3's on his computer, but did not offer them up for sharing via P2P. This begs the question: How did the RIAA know about it?
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone, I think they are a bunch of scumbags. But people need to realize that this is not simply a case of someone ripping CDs for their own personal use; according to the supplemental brief (pdf) (see page 12,13 etc), the guy apparently was using KazAa and had the files into the shared directory. Now I am not making any judgement on the legality or morality of doing this; it's simply worth noting that this is not a simple case of "now it's illegal to even rip your own CDs (SHOCK! HORROR!)". This is more a case of the same-old, same-old RIAA going after someone who seemed to be sharing the files over a peer-to-peer network. I know the article quotes them as saying scary and insane stuff about it not being legal to even make copies of your own CDs, but didn't the Audio Home Recording Act take care of making copies for your own use a while back? I think it's pretty easy to convince any jury that making copies of CDs and distributing them over the internet is "wrong", but they'd have a hard time convincing any sane person that ripping mp3 versions of your own, legally purchased CDs, for your own use, is in any wrong.
Maybe the RIAA should surf on over to the iTunes web site. Apple has a full page dedicated to making illegal copies of legally purchased music. Do I get a finder's fee?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Cant wait to read the Slashdot spin when MS and Apple tag-team against the RIAA here...RIAA is accusing MS, Apple, Real, Creative, and more that I cant think of at the moment of facilitating crime on a mass scale, not exactly something that Balmer and Jobs will take without one hell of a fight...I hope
As I said last time, unauthorized is not synonymous with illegal. It is even in the article, the unauthorized copies won't give legal trouble as long as you don't distribute the copies.
give a demo of riping a CD to an ipod and then ask why the fuck these cases can even make it to court!
So: zero loss means damages of what ?
I don't use it, but doesn't iTunes allow you to add the tracks from a CD to your library automatically?
The RIAA versus millions of iPod owners. This could get interesting...
Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
Yes, yes... there's all the talk about fair use, but this statement just strikes me
as them trying to enforce a standard that wasn't a standard. It may have been
considered by them not to "be a legal right" to copy but they rarely bothered
to enforce it. Now that the business model is collapsing, they start to enforce
this so-called standard?
You know, each person has their own breaking point, and if this is the newest
trend of the RIAA, then I've just reached my own breaking point. I've had it.
I'm done with them. Period. I can't take being forced this rotten tripe they and
their associates have been feeding the people. "from the because-we-needed-
another-reason-to-be-cranky-at-them dept" indeed.
I'm not a US resident, but the effects are still felt here in the UK, so I feel able to make some comment.
:P) in their bulky unwieldy boxes (who designed those things: they either break, won't open or the disc inside flies across the room) they are insane.
There are some things that are just never gonna happen - there's a critical mass of progress or just practicality that prevents it. If the "RIAA" thinks people will go back to carrying around hundreds of 5 inch plastic discs (yes, I typed "discs" - lets check that again - yes phew
This is a little bit like having to run software from the installation disc all the time. The software industry more or less solved this, with other means of licensing other than ownership of the physical delivery media and allowed users to "copy" the software to their PC's internal storage. Yes there is theft, but software vendors know that if they insisted on having the install disc present for every piece of software in your PC, users would vote with their feet and go use something else (plus of course, everyone would just mount ISO images of the discs, or if that wouldn't work, a solution would be found - that's the power of a connected and talented user base).
So if these guys think I'm going to have the install-disc in the stereo for whatever music I'm listening to, I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
Consider car audio - in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a hand-held telephone whilst operating a vehicle (even if you're stopped at the lights etc). And yet, it's still OK for us to eject a CD, fumble around for a new CD, open the box (all with one hand) and insert it into the player. Now, as anyone who has done this will know, after 2 days, none of the CD boxes will contain the music advertised on the outside - so to play a specific album, you could be fumbling about for quite a while, and at the same time, you must control your vehicle at road speeds, amongst other traffic etc. etc. Madness. Auto changers did a bit to address this, but I can guarantee you most people will take the same 6 CDs out of the car when they sell it, that they put in the day they bought it. It's just too much of a planned activity to firtle around in the boot of your car with those CD magazines, and by the time you think "hmm must change the discs" you're cruising down the M6, so you never do it.
The problem was neatly solved by having a big fat SD card sticking out of your dashboard with all the music you ever wanted at a quality that exceeds that of the acoustic environment that is your car. (Unless you drive the Albert Hall, in which case, you're on your own). This is so good in fact, I never want to see a CD again after I've installed the music on it.
The RIAA's primary objective is "to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists". All very laudable, but I wonder if they consult these artists before they issue these proclamations? After all, sales of billions with some loss due to illegal re-production has to be better financially, than sales of only thousands with no loss. Surely? Would the artists prefer to remain penniless, safe in the knowledge that no one has illegally copied their material?
The RIAA needs to find a better solution if they want to attain any credibility: "go back to a time when this wasn't an issue" is not acceptable. They may as well suggest we all go back to the horse and cart to solve vehicle emissions, or that banks use ledger books and quill pens to avoid all those troublesome data centre issues. Technically, and qualitatively all these things would still work, but none of em are gonna happen, any time this side of a global apocalypse anyway (and maybe not on the other side either - there maybe a shortage of horses...).
Now, excuse me while I go break some laws with my Squeezebox.
Cheers,
Scoot.
When Itunes rips a CD, it will automatically get the track names from an online database, and now even the album artwork.
because the more foolish the RIAA acts, the less seriously the courts will take them.... And this is foolishness of a extra-ordinary magnitude. (Try to hear that last sentence with a bad Chinese accent)
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
...because my wife pointed out one of her helpful tips in the magazine she (Stewart) publishes. The tip is to rip your CD collection to an mp3 player and donate the CDs to a nursing home.
Of course this is flat-out illegal (unlike the premise of TFA, which has the RIAA claiming the mere act of ripping is itself illegal), but what else can you expect from a seasoned ex-con like Martha? 4 life, homey. 4 life.
...You get a tune stuck in your head.
Some years ago I owned a Sony CD player and a Sony Minidisc player/recorder. The CD player and Minidisc were designed so that I could, with a single click of a remote control button (the button was called 'Sync Record' if memory serves), record the CD onto Minidisc without further intervention. This was a feature designed to simplify the copying of CDs to Minidisc and was documented as such in the Sony documentation.
I am sure there are a myriad of other examples of hardware and software manufacturer implementing features which expedite the 'illegal' copying of music and other software. I suppose what makes the Sony instance more interesting is that Sony operate a music label as well and are presumably part of the RIAA mafia.
It says this on the RIAA website (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php).
11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. Thats bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well. We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.
After he ripped them he did make them available to everyone else in the world using Kazaa. Assuming this is the same guy
I'm a big proponent on copyright laws and I think "Fair Use" is too often used as a defense but this case falls squarely under it. Here's some Wikipedia quotes on the subject(below). The fourth condition mentioned would negate copying for a friend since it could be percieved as allowing your friend to use the work without paying for it but copying for your own use is covered under the first condition since it's not commercial. Yes copying for a friend is non commercial but it also has a potential impact since he no longer needs to buy the work to benefit. That condition will be agrued until doomsday but personal use and scholarly use are covered.
From Wikipedia:
"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "fair use" is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright."
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Maybe Sony could sue themselves for making the music, then also making the hardware that enables to rip the audio, and recordable CD's / DVD's / Memory sticks to record it to?
These companies want to have their cake and eat it. When will the courts see this?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
I have a couple major ways to get music onto my computer. The first is to buy (or steal) Compact Discs (or those old vinyl records if I had something to play them with) and copy the music onto my computer from there. The second is to download the music, which could be either legally purchased or found being given away illegally by someone. And now the music industry tells me the first option is out.
Given the trends in the way music is listened to these days, which involves a spectrum from listening to huge collections stored on a computer to listening via small portable devices, the compact disk itself, for more and more people, is nothing more than the "purchase medium" in much the same way most commercial software is legally purchased. But if the music industry says "no" to using the Compact Disc to get our music, then I guess we have to quit buying those. Of course there will be some exceptions such as those available from places like CD Baby and Magnatune.
If the music industry thinks I'm going to listen to my music by actually playing the CD on some big clunky mechanical device, they are totally out of touch. But then, we've known that for a few years, already. It seems the music industry itself will drive the CD into oblivion even before the public was going to.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I think we should swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction, but then again I am fairly bitter about this whole culture grab by corporations.
Blar.
Can you imagine shoving a Beowulf Cluster up the RIAA's ass?
As iTunes copies the tracks in AAC and MP3 then it is a illegal tool!
The RIAA whose members are financed by the iTunes Store with this precendt attack indirectly Apple. This is not FUD this is simply ridicolous.
In the short term Americans need to get rid of Imaginary Property claims as soon as possible as such models enforced in this way will have only the effect of suppressing free expression and creativity.
From that discussion, a comment by scooter.higher
And the brief he's referring to http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Even the the hardware and the media they are using are outdated, checkout sites like http://www.jamendo.org/ that promote creative commons licensed artists. If I you play their game you play by their rules. It's artists and people en general that should be aware that there are ways to avoid this kind of major stupidities.
This is how things evolved. There is nothing with ripping your own cds. Hell i dont think there is anything wrong with trading mp3s, or letting your friends rip them.
;)
I do think we should all move to AAC or Flac
Seriously... This is how things evolved and everyone expects this functionality. You cant say ripping a cd is illegal 10 years after its common place! This is evolution baby! Now we're all criminals?
.....he also placed them in a shared folder on Kazaa, thus "making available." Yes, the RIAA believes that ripping to a computer or other device is illegal, but if you don't make them publicly available, how would anyone know? As evil as they are, the RIAA is probably not going to start searching millions of computers looking for ripped mp3s. That would either involve planting snooping software through a virus or hack (for which they have already received a good amount of flak) or getting law enforcement to do the job. I'm sure searching people's computers for music tracks would have about as much priority of manpower on the local level as busting people for littering or jaywalking.
What I see happening here is the RIAA is still targeting file sharers, but trying to set a solid precedent for a separate offense of ripping the songs to a computer in the first place -- could allow them to intensify the suits and increase the extortion money.....er.....damages they seek. It's kind of like how, in many jurisdictions, cops don't go around actively looking for drivers who are not wearing their seat belts, but if they pull you over for another reason and your belt is not fastened, they'll hit you with another ticket.
And, as others have pointed out, ripping software is ubiquitous, even in Microsoft's own Media Player, in RealPlayer, etc. There's probably not a PC or laptop sold in this country that doesn't come with an audio program that includes some form of CD ripping software already installed, and there are literally hundreds of shareware and freeware programs that do the job as well. Unless the RIAA is now going to go after all the suppliers of that software for facilitating the "illegal" act of ripping, I don't expect that this is going to be much of a priority for them.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Wow, though this story is not a perfect example of it the RIAA actually maintains that every time I rip an MP3 I am stealing it. Man!! I rip every CD I buy so I can play it on my MP3 player! This is a huge weight off my shoulders! Since I am stealing the music anyway according to the RIAA I might as well skip buying the CD's any more and just download it for free. Thanks guys!
The RIAA should require all stores selling CDs to display prominent warning signs stating "It is illegal to buy CDs unless you agree to only play them on a CD player. If you copy these onto your MP3 player you will go to jail.".
These signs should preferably be placed close to the cash register to turn back customers who may have missed them elsewhere in the store and be unwittingly about to buy a CD for anything other than their grandfather's dust collecting CD player.
This simple solution should deter this heineious crime of people enjoying the music they buy in CD format, and should also (magically, against all expectations) boost CD sales.
Seeing as Appple's iTunes software supports loading of your CDs onto your iPod or (god forbid!) playing them on your PC, it's obvious that the RIAA should also ligitate against Apple to cripple ITunes functionality, and stop people from buying CDs for these nefarious listening purposes, and this should also magically boost CD sales.
We must start to think the unthinkable, that the political system that is supposed to represent us has been subverted by a monster. That monster is the monolithic oligarchy that our 'entertainment industry' has become. For those of you with an education, it calls to mind that the gladiator games of Roman times were managed by an imperially appointed 'entertainment' administrator of the highest Roman rank. The purpose, then as now, was to keep the public sedated whilst their rights were silently stolen from them and their hunger made at least temporarily ignorable at least for those hours spent in watching or contemplating the horrific pain of others even less fortunate than they. Recall the phrase: ..."they could not give the crowds bread, so they gave them a circus!". The words of our own Declaration of Independence written over two centuries ago about the rights of a people, a free people, to rebel against unfair laws and change their government should come to mind. For this government is no longer ours. It has allowed dark forces of corruption to invent and pervert words and phrases of our language from their original meanings. "Intellectual property" was unheard of a short fifty years ago in a time when ideas not rendered in hardware were not patentable and algorithms were free to anyone to create without fear. Now even the simple lazy susan that has been around for centuries, no millennia as even primitive tribesmen have used them since the earliest sentience of man, is now owned by mendacious corporations like walmart as a 'business methods patent'. The point of all this is for citizens to stop thinking about this law or that law, a process akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The descendants of those apostles of blindness and ignorance yet live in England in what is left of the once great 'British Empire', complete with their blind worship of their 'nobility'. We free thinking Americans came here to get away from that. Now the oligarchs have followed us here. Don't think so?! Turn on your television and listen to how many british accents are on it! Brits work cheap! They are the poorest people in the new Europe!
The only way anyone is going to know about any 'cd ripping' in any large scale way is from people's home computers being informers for the oligarchy. The way this is done is simple. Anything connected to the internet and running any form of microsoft software is an automatic suspect. Especially 'veeesta'. In many ways people bring this on themselves, for millions of citizens are too undereducated to own, really own, a computer. Computer owners used to set up their own computers, now they let stores bring to them machines set up by the oligarchy. They will now have to learn again that a criminal enterprise with the power of state that can do anything for you can do anything to you.
I know you were making a joke, but that really is how the *AAs see it.
And what did you use for analog computers? I just don't recall any... Analog music, well analog recordings, sure. But was a turntable an analog computer? Think not...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This happened in the last one of these stories, which was Arstechnica IIRC. Yes, the RIAA case says that taking a CD and ripping MP3s from it is making unauthorised copies. No, the RIAA case does not say that making the unauthorised copies is illegal. Those were the personal opinion of Jennifer Pariser when she was asked about it in a completely different case. It is not a part of their legal argument.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
maybe it will.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/11/0436215 "RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized"
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/06/228202 " RIAA Conceals Overturned Case" Look at the first link the article.
I think the RIAA argument is that offering or otherwise sharing the files (to people other than you aka the public) makes the copies unauthorized copies. I agree with their reasoning, and I think the courts will also agree. You can not use "fair use" (aka format shifting) as a defense when you are breaking other parts of the law.
I stand corrected, the courts did agree. Lookup the bold one...
Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting
Side note: I think the media might be trolling.
Then the RIAA wil fully realize that judges and the law aren't on their side.
They're using their grammar skills there.
You just broadly communicated a method to circumvent a copy protection device.
But all the big record labels (and a lot of small record labels) have signed deals saying it's OK to upload your ripped music to imeem.com so you can share it - just like you shared that clip from 'Top Gear' on youtube. I mean I'm sure there's no specific mention in those contracts regarding the source of the mp3/ogg/m4a/wma files that users can upload, but I'd imagine that since you can't buy mp3 downloads from many labels you only option is to either rip or download the file.
IANAL but these deals by the RIAA members sure seem to condone ripping as the most legitimate path to using imeem.
Up for it.
Further to DVD Jon etc, the industry has already decided that someone who produces and spreads tools to enable illegal ripping is far worse than someone who just rips a few tracks.
Instead of just picking on soft targets like poor families, I'd like to see the RIAA litigate against Microsoft for including the "rip music from audio CDs" button in Windows Media player. Mostly because Microsoft and the RIAA both have enough money to fruitlessly hack lumps out of each other for years.
They won't do it though because they know Microsoft have enough attorneys to hand the RIAA's balls back to them on a plate.
But is this news item, which is a dupe from a few weeks back, an authorized or unauthorized copy?
(This sig intentionally left blank)
I'm completely outside the system: not US / Europe resident... and I'm amazed by what I read. Music is NOT a vital need like food and water. So why simply stop buying it, listening radio, looking tv for a while? RIAA use your dollars to sue you, why continue to give them? Stop crying, act...
So, six months after the article you linked to (and still four and a half years ago):
"The Supreme Court ruled today that police questioning in the absence of Miranda warnings, even questioning that is overbearing to the point of coercion, does not violate the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination, as long as no incriminating statements are introduced at the suspect's trial.
But a person subjected to such questioning can still bring a civil suit against the police for damages for violating the Constitution's guarantee of due process, the court ruled." source
So, not only do you have the right to remain silent, you actually have the right to sue the police if they coerce you into giving up that right -- and they still can't introduce what you say as evidence.
Maybe you should RTFA. The argument could have been made that distributing, or merely making available for distribution, was the infringement. But they are in fact saying that merely copying the music to the computer is (an) infringement.
And don't think the Audio Home Recording Act, especially its section 1008 provision, will necessarily protect you. That law specifies devices that contain the Serial Copy Management System, and media (where you store the music) that requires royalty payments (e.g. some portion of your hard drive cost goes to pay the music industry). Although the ruling in the Rio case (when the music industry tried to destroy the first MP3 player) said a computer hard drive was outside the scope of the AHRA, you don't get any protection from the AHRA for music on a hard drive, either (and this seems to be the basis of some past RIAA statements). So if you made yourself a copy via SCMS enabled DAT, then AHRA 1008 does protect you. But if it was by other means without SCMS, then AHRA provides no such protection.
So this is (or has now become) an issue of merely "ripping a CD to a computer". The RIAA focused the issue that way by their own choosing. While they are unlikely to find out about most instances of ripping, at least not for a while, or at least not without installing some root kit, we can see their attitudes and political directions clearly.
I have no sympathy for the guy for his music sharing activities. But this is a case where the RIAA is taking advantage of his action methods to further support these extended arguments that they have already also made in the past.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It is easy to go after a consumer...
Now it is time to get the balls and take on Apple, Microsoft or anyone that sells, makes and produces anything that plays mp3(s) etc... Sony has packaged ripping software with it's players (/wonders if they where smart enough to sue themselves).
I know if it where not for these players and the ability to place my collection onto them, I wouldn't be buying any music. There is so little music out the now that is new or just not crap. Gone are the days of producing, signing talent and developing music for the long run. Welcome to the days of RIAA suing and blaming everyone else for their own ignorance and failure at doing business.
Once upon a time, a soon to be mommy and daddy loved each other very much (the lust was strong as well as the drinks)
Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use."
Doesn't this directly contradict what this lawsuit is about?
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
The RIAA is not suing someone because they ripped their CDs. Their allegation is the same old story: defender made songs available for download.
In the course of their case they are trying to sneak in the idea that ripping a CD is unauthorized, which they think will help their main allegation (the unlawful distribution of the songs on the Internet).
I guess they will regret it in the end. The way I understand it, case law is what establishes fair use and if the judge rules that ripping a CD for personal use is OK, then fair use defense is forever strengthened.
But none of that means that the RIAA is starting to sue customers just because they are ripping CDs, which makes the main point of the article completely inaccurate.
This case is still about P2P distribution.
I suspect there are quite a number of people who have been very law abiding in their intentions and made sure they are not making the music they legally buy, and then copy into their computer, available to others on the internet. They also make sure they do not loan, give away, or resell, the original CD they legally bought. But these people are being considered by the RIAA to be infringing on copyrights. The RIAA has suggested this in the past, but it is becoming a lot clearer now that the RIAA thinks of these people as criminals. Now that so many people who first thought of themselves as law abiding are going to realize they may well be criminals, anyway, how many of them will no longer see file sharing as a barrier of legality? More of these people will either quit buying CDs, now, or will join in the file sharing. So merely copying a CD to a computer has become the gateway "drug" to get into file sharing for many people. Either direction hurts the music industry. But what else is there? You can't even enjoy the music without being a criminal.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The DMCA prohibits bypassing an "effective" technical measure preventing access. A rootkit that can be bypassed by simply placing the CD in a PC that is running a popular operating system (i.e., any flavor of Linux) will NOT constitute an "effective" measure, so is untouchable. At least if one has a competenet lawyer...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Mr. Beckerman,
Since you're quoted in the article I assume you're familiar with the case. The phrase "suing individuals who merely rip CDs" sounds a bit off... in particular, that word "merely." My guess is that he was targeted as a file sharer, and thus he was not "merely" ripping CDs -- rather, the RIAA alleges that he's sharing music which he happened to rip from his personal collection. Am I correct?
Unless the RIAA is asking for additional damages for ripping CDs (on top of the settlement money they're after, or the damages they might seek if it goes to trial), the headline "RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs" seems disingenuous. Legally speaking, if he petted his dog that day, it 's the equivalent of stating "RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Pet Their Dogs." Of course, if the RIAA will be seeking additional damages for the act of ripping (on top of making available), then I'm wrong, but I'm not sure this is the case.
Can you clarify? Do you agree that the write-up and/or the article is misleading in its omission?
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
>the unauthorized copies won't give legal trouble as long as you don't distribute the copies.
You must have been sleeping on the post, because the RIAA has argued (and won IIRC) on 'making available is infringement', that is to say, you don't have to actually distribute, it's enough that you could have or that the RIAA says you have.
Actually, it was Gordon Brown who said he had the Beatles on his iPod.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1582428.ece
But then later removed it when he was informed it was illegal.
(In Britain there is no concept of "Fair Use" in copyright law)
Dude, last I heard, the iTMS have sold over a billion and a half songs and were closing in on two at an accelerating pace.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
what they sell you is a license to listen to that music
Is there anyone out there that imagines there is such a thing as a "license to read"? That when you buy a book what you're actually buying a "license to read"?
I find it weird how this "license to listen" meme keeps cropping up from so many different people. The concept "license to listen" does not exist in US law. Nor does it exist anywhere in the law of any country of the Berne copyright convention... meaning pretty much every country on earth.
Transferred ownership would imply that the music wouldn't belong to the record company anymore.
Correct. According to US law and pretty well every country on earth, that particular copy doen't belong to the record company anymore.
When you buy a CD, you are in fact buying the physical medium. You are buying a physical medium that happens to have music encoded on it. By law you become the owner of that physical object, and by law you become the owner of the particular copy of the music that happens to be on that medium.
When you buy a book or a CD or whatnot, you do not receive any license at all. Because you do not need any license at all.
You do not need a license to read a book. You own the book you bought, you have every right to read it. And even if you don't own the book, it doesn't matter. If you can see the text in someone else's book, you are perfectly free to read that too. The same goes for records and CDs and videos and whatnot. You do not need any sort of license to play something you bought. You have every right to drop your chunk of vinyl onto a record player or stick your videocassette into a VCR.
A further point is that the law explicitly states that you need no license whatsoever to install and run software. No, copyright law absolutely positively does not require you to have any sort of EULA to install and run software. EULAs are contract offers, and companies try to rely on a couple of other legal tricks to attempt (with varying degrees of success) to corner you into accepting an EULA. Legal mechanisms that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Those issues are therefore wandering off topic of copyright.
Copyright law explicitly itemizes six things it restricts, but for discussion they can pretty well be condensed down to just three different things. (1) Copying (2) Distribution and (3) Public Performance. Nothing outside those three categories is restricted by copyright law. You do not need any sort of license to do anything outside of those three things. You do not need a license to read a book, you do not need a license to play a CD, you do not need a license to chop up you videocassette set it on fire.
Copying, distribution, and public performance are restricted and potentially require licenses to do, however at this point copyright law gets very messy. There are all sorts of rules and exceptions. In some cases unlicensed unauthorized activities are not infringing. The prime example is in distribution. When you buy a book or whatnot, you own that particular copy and you have the distribution right of giving or selling that particular copy. The legal term is "Right of First Sale", and the legal language is that the copyright holder has "exhausted his distribution right" in that particular copy, used up and eliminated his distribution rights in that particular copy. There is also a vast range of copying activities that are unlicensed unauthorized and noninfringing. Some activities are explicitly noninfringing due to exceptions written into law, and (speaking of US law here) many more are protected Fair Use which would often be unconstitutional for copyright law to prohibit. Fair Use cannot be altered, diminished, or eliminated by passing a law. An law attempting to do so would be constitutionally NULL and VOID. Fair Use was established by the courts, and they did so on constitutional grounds. Fair Use was indeed written into US law in 1976, but the congressional record and the US court
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
For anyone who pays attention to what the RIAA and MPAA do it's easy to see their tactic. They make these absurd legal claims which are outrageous to anyone who has any idea as to how a computer works, then they exploit the fact that most of the legal system is badly computer illiterate. They constantly "brief" the judges when the defending party has no opportunity to do that themselves. Then on top of all of that they purposely attack people who can't afford to defend themselves legally, maximizing their chances of winning and creating fear amongst their consumers. Occasionally they screw up and one of their victims manages to hire a half-decent lawyer, they are then subject to a humiliating defeat in the court room.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they try to subpoena slashdot to try and get my IP address just for writing this.
I read the article, and scrolled through the first page of comments, and can't seem to find the answer to this question: How did the RIAA know he had ripped all these cds to his hard drive? Was he caught doing something else (ie using Kazaa or whatever the kids use these days) and they decided to get him for the 2000 mp3s he wasn't sharing as well or something?
Fucking idiots.
That would be like prosecuting Al Capone on charges of tax evasion.
...since over here in Europe, the RIAA can't touch us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
That's truly frightening ...
Cell phone rings.
"Microsoft, this is Ballmer."
"Steve? It's Jobs."
"The Other Steve." (Ballmer lowers the chair and sits down.)
"Right. Listen, meet me for lunch in 2 hours. We have a problem."
"What's the Exec. Summary?"
"RIAA. Sez their music is neither Certified for Vista or 'Castable on my 'Pod."
"Uh... we're on the same side for this one?"
"Good to have you aboard, Ballmer."
"Damn, Jobs. This could be fun. Lunch is on us. "
"Wouldn't miss it."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
1. Can someone request a jury in civil trials?
2. Ripping music one has bought does no harm. It has been paid for.
Logically, the music bought can only be used one at a time, with the exception of doing a round. In other words, if you buy a CD, regardless of whether you're listening to it on a CD player, or listening to a ripped mp3 of it, you're listening to one copy at a time. If two copies are being used at the same time, then that would have to be seen as copyright theft since an individual CD copy is unable to do that.
3. Extortion by license. If made, or is, illegal, by license, to have (to listen) to more than one copy at a time (spaceshifting), then more money is going to the record labels. Money should be construed as a finite resource. Therefore, they're getting a larger chunk of the finite resource, money, for no "real" extra work done. Analogy: Think about if the federal government increased income taxes, without increasing what they provide to the public.
Solution: The people have the power to change the laws and to fight back when in court. If a law seems unjust, the jury can always vote in favour of the defendent.
Disclaimer: None of what I said in this comment shall be construed as legal advise in any shape or form. This comment is the expressed opinion of myself, and in no way am I condoning illegal activites.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
And they wonder why they're "suffering" from a sales "slump"... RIAA, Go Away!
Can someone tell me how the RIAA know if you've ripped music from a CD to use for your own personal use?
That was a conference where Hitler's minions decided, with calm and sober delberation, the mechanisms of recouping the costs of the coming holocaust and how the proceeds of the sale of the worldly goods of the Jews and the other victims were to be divided up.
None of these people would have been called evil, despite the utter monstrosity of the acts, their hands were clean of any blood splashing on them directly.
They were merely looking out for the best interests of the stake-holders (despite the fact that they were in effect talking about robbing the 'soon to be' corpses.)
Do you think that the lawyers of the RIAA are kept up at night by the fundamentally flawed logic inherent in propping up an industry which has lost its reason for being?
Good God man! They are making their money, the legal fees, protecting the interests of about 20 companies (its not just the big four, there are about 16 other members of the RIAA) selling NOISE.
And the RIAA are lawyers, they have big egos and even bigger sticks with which to bludgeon you. They comprise the majority of people we elect, and they have control of some people whom they can send around to the other side of the planet to kill your ass.
If the RIAA is not sleeping nights its because they're looking for another way to rip off their 20 or so clients (and fuck the listening public.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So what great detective work did they have to do to find out he'd ripped all those cds? Oh wait, he was sharing them on Kazaa. Never mind.
Let me just stand on my chair here and be the first to say: FUCK YOU to the RIAA for this decision.
If I spend money to support your conglomerate, I am free to do whatever I choose with the product I now own, and you do not. I am free to listen to, rip, burn, light on fire, put in a blender or anything else I want to do with the physical media.
You no longer get to tell me what I can and cannot do with the product since it no-longer belongs to you.
I'm done supporting your racket, your crimes, your travesty and your strong-arm, mob tactics. I'm standing on this chair along with millions of my fellow listeners and customers of your products and the bands you claim to support.
You missed the boat on using the Internet and digital music as a medium distribution mechanism and now you're reacting to that loss. Most of us have broadband now so we can download music legally. We have high-quality printers at home, so we can print album artwork. We have CD and DVD burners now, so we can burn the music to disc.
You could have given us a way to download, burn, print and listen to our own music, LEGALLY years before the iTunes Store was invented, taking the market by storm... but you missed that, you couldn't see it, you lost it all.
Paying $0.99/song for a 10-12 song disc I can manage and burn myself would still have given you money, while you save millions on not having to pay drivers, physical media production, shipping, brick-and-mortar stores, electricity for lights and so on.
You missed, you lose.
So let me just restate that so we're clear: FUCK YOU , we're done with you.
From http://www.riaa.com/faq.php:
11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally.
and so on and so forth. Yes, they can protect the CD with some minimal copy protection and then the DMCA applies. That's their prerogative and I don't see them taking it as often as they used to.
TFA barley mentions that this innocent victim was indeed sharing the resulting files out via kazaa. I would have hoped that the RIAA lawyers would think before they spoke and frame better sentences than those that the media picked up. Rolling the act of distribution (illegal) together with the act of copying (usually allowed for personal use) in a court case is hurtful to the consumers and the music industry.
More reading material from the evil industry http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html
Copying CDs
* It's okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
* It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) - but, again, not for commercial purposes.
* Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
* The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
* The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use - in fact, it's illegal - to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
* The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
* Remember, it's never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.
I don't like corporations suing little people - there needs to be a better way. The "little people" need to stop violating copyright laws, especially since the music industry is starting to bend a little by offering DRM-free MP3s.
That being said, I think the music industry has failed to produce compelling art for too many years now. They need to crushed into a cube and shot into the sun. Just like all those bastards that post things AC because they are too lazy to login.
Parent obviously knows of what they speak. In particular "controlling" is specific legal jargon (see here) so parent obviously has legal training of some sort.
I got to wonder if making an unauthorized copy is illegal than listening to the CD would be illegal since the CD player makes a copy of the music from the CD into an internal memory buffer.
So, since they can sue Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc... for providing P2P, I suppose this means they will be suing Apple next for providing the software (iTunes) that allows us to rip our CDs. That would be interesting.
When the RIAA goes after people who use Limewire, that's one thing. And even that with the Keystone Kops manner in which they have managed to sue 70 year old grandmothers without computers and 8 year old girls hasn't gone too well for them.
Suing people who clearly BOUGHT the product, then ripped it to their Ipod is going to cause them the mother of all backlashes. Too many people have been doing this for too long for that genie to be put back into the bottle. This is a case in which the RIAA can't buy themselves a law, the people will hang the congress that passes and tries to enforce such a law.
Sometimes, when the people are riled up enough, they DO force Congress to do what they want instead of what the special interests want, recent example being the amnesty for illegal aliens bill the Congress tried to ram through despite overwhelming opposition.
If the congress tries to give them a special law here it will never fly.
And any judge who finds that ripping a CD to MP3 for personal use isn't fair use, and isn't covered under the part of copyright law THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ARCHIVE (ie: backup) stuff you buy should be dragged off his throne and flogged.
Corporatism != Free Market
If only there were some way to trick them into inadvertently insulting Muhammad.
Stick Men
My taste in music is probably a little different from most here, the last CD I bought (just before Christmas) was music from the court of Richard the Lionheart.
However, I bought it straight from the website of the people performing the music. This tends to be the only way I actually buy music any more.
Haha, the Recording Industry Association of America didn't read American laws!!!! By law: You are entitled to make one (1) copy of any digital medium...
Just because it works, Doesn't make it right. - JTM
Yeah. I love it.
Power to the peo^H^H^H money.
Privacy is terrorism.
The simple answer to this reductio-ad-absurdam is illuminating: RIAA won't do this because it would hurt sales. IE -- commercial advantage is more important than protecting Intellectual "property". I take them at their word, and so their "overreaching" must fail. They could have chosen greater protection, and this choice must be considered in their later complaints. Contributory negligence[estoppel].
I find it weird how this "license to listen" meme keeps cropping up from so many different people.
It is not so wierd. You touched upon the reason in the last half of your post.
The RIAA/MPAA would have you believe that when you buy a CD/DVD, you don't really own the copy. Rather, they assert, as in licensed use, that they can provide you with a list of restrictions on how you can use your copy once you've bought it. When you start getting into DRMed media, this becomes even more explicit, as the song/video itself starts to place restrictions upon how you can use it (e.g. you can only use CoolMusic.mp3 you bought from iTunes in 3 devices you own, vs. being able to play a CD in any CD player you own).
Naturally, such assertions are absurd. However, if you preach something long enough, you will find some people start to believe you anyways. The fact that such restrictions become possible with DRMed media only fosters this belief.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I just got a letter from the RIAA that they are suing me for not buying music from their labels. They say, and I quote: "Our research shows that the average consumer will purchase only 7.8% of their music from independant labels, yet you are purchasing 94% from them. For this reason, we have filed suit against you to recover the lost sales due to you not being an average consumer."
</sarcasm>
Take the PURCHASING power of the dollar, rather than add up all the inflation rates (which is basically how fast the government is printing new money, NOT how much prices are going up.
How much does it cost to get a new car with A/C, radio etc (all luxury items) now compared to a similarly specced car from the 80's? About the same (give or take some change). Probably a little less.
How much did an 80's PC cost? How about now? Much less than half.
Where are mod points when I need them. This needs an insightful and an informative. And flamebait isn't right... Do we have a bomb-bait?
Not yet, but some day. RMS isn't just a programmer.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
the RIAA is going to list the item "he made UNAUTHORIZED copies of CDs into MP3s on his computer and unauthorized copies copyright infringement".
...*snip*...
Yes, copying a CD into MP3 format is indeed "unauthorized". However that does not make it copyright infringement.
I'll play grammar pedant for a moment only because it's actually germane. In the first statement, they claim he made an "unauthorized copy". Unless that's just a redundancy, it implies there are "authorized copies" (say, for personal fair use) and "unauthorized copies" (say, for sharing via P2P). If that's the case, via interpretation of their exact language, I don't have a problem with that. Of course, a jury will decide whether "making available" is an actual violation, but I think it's a leap to take the specific statement cited and interpret it to mean that the RIAA is claiming that any copy anywhere is illegal.
Of course, they've still said a lot of other dumb stuff, but examining the current case very narrowly, I think it's being misinterpreted. Note that most of the media coverage of the case glosses over the P2P part conveniently, at which point this case becomes Same Old Story.
I am a Computer Technician in my town and most of my customers are home pc users. One of the most popular requests I get from people is to show them how to rip cd's to the hard drive or on to a mobile MP3 device, or to make backup copies. I of course take the side of caution and tell them I can't help them with that because it's not really legal in the eyes of the music industry. The response I get is " Oh no you don't understand I bought these cd's , I own them." Then I explain to them that even if you own them you can't do it, especially by me because I have a business to run, and as much as I hate it, I have to deny helping my customers in this regard. Now these are law-abiding consumers (yes, the very same people who keep the record companies in business) - these people look at me with a blank stare, incensed at the new found knowledge that they don't own what they bought. I had one customer, after I finished a memory upgrade, pissed off at me because I would not help her back up her Elvis Presley cd's to her hard drive. She says to me "What the hell do I pay you for? I don't give a shit legal or not it my dam music". I told her she was on her own, and she abruptly ended our session. Have not heard from her since. The moral of the story is people just don't get what all the fuss is about. They believe they own what they buy. They should. With so many other real problems out there, people can't believe certain parties take the whole situation so seriously. When I explain it to them, they are down right angry. Many vow to learn how on their own and copy up a storm. It's just not seen as being wrong in the eyes of 99% of the people. And you know what - It's not. Happy copying!
Slashdot has the article header wrong. He isn't being sued for ripping CD's, he is being sued for downloading music he doesn't own. Slashdot and subsequent posters over the past 3 years have done more to negate their own credibility than any outside influence could have ever prayed for. Nice going...
I know you have other replies, but I wanted to add my own... yes, there IS a license to read, if you're comparing digital bits on a plastic medium to a digital reproduction of a written work. Have you read the serious license and restrictions which bind the Amazon Kindle device?
Basically you're only allowed to read a certain number of work in a given time (i.e. you can't read faster than your license allows), and if you violate that, your ENTIRE Amazon account is irrevokably terminated. This means all of the digital books you've already purchased the right-to-read in their online library, are no longer available to you, forever.
So yes, if you're comparing digital apples to digital oranges, there is a "right-to-read" out there, and its becoming more and more common every day.
Make a legal argument that it is illegal to rip lossless cds of legally purchased cds. Did you guys think this was going to work in the consumer's favor?
This is an important fact in the story. The parent seems to be correct.
Unfortunately, it's a fact that makes the RIAA's case more reasonable.
Learning to play an instrument, sing, or dance can provide a great way to release your emotions, commune with your friends, and enjoy music much more than simply putting on the earphones and listening in your own little cocoon.
They're also extremely insensate.
They certainly don't listen to the schlock their clients (all 20 of them) are pimping.
If you or I tried to defend this kind extortion, never mind try to carry it out, we would be slapped in jail so fuckin' fast, slapped with RICO act actions, and have to share cells with guys named Bubba.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Most here are too young to remember Senator Joe McCarthy and his need to find "Commies" under every rock in America. I watched it on an Admiral black and white TV in the 50's and yet even as a child I sensed something was wrong with what was being done to the common person for the sake of power.
I see a great similarity between the RIAA and McCarthyism.
Joe McCarthy was banished finally when what he would say and do got so outlandish that his own party members could no longer stomach it. A totally despised individual universally.
Meanwhile many innocent individuals suffered a black mark for the rest of their lives. this is very similar to what the RIAA is perpetrating and just like ole Joe they too will fail. The despising part is already in place... eventually even those in power will no longer want to be known as "One who stands behind the RIAA".
Like those who suffered Joe, there are those who are now suffering the repercussions of the RIAA. To those I send my moral support.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
IINAL, but it seems to me, that it would require a user to install it. The average person out there is NOT installing it without a push by a geek (or perhaps a dollar consideration). As such, RIAA could argue that their rootkit is effective. Now, if the home is running some form of *nix, then yes, they would be able to argue that the kit was not effective, but just a circumstance that it was ripped on a windows systems.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So then, how long is it until musical instruments are illegal as well?
*Gasp!* It's possible for me to pull out my guitar in my living room and play a Boston Song or two for my own playing pleasure. Surely that infringes on all their "hard earned rights"
Oh god! Won't someone think of the children?
Yes.
The RIAA sees it as a harm. They need more revenues to bolster their failed business model. So they are looking at all the possible approaches to gouge consumers as deep and bloody as possible. One approach is to get you to pay again for each different device you can play music on. And they want you to buy the CD again if the first one gets scratched. Want a backup ... buy 2 CDs. Want to let your spouse listen, too ... buy another CD. Want to play music from your computer ... buy a DRM-crippled copy that requires root-kit infested spyware to play, in between popping up ads.
The RIAA opposes fair use.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
have my children.... plz..? :-)
No words of wisedom here.
How? Because the MP3s just happen to be located in the folder that Kazaa shares files from, instead of some other folder on his hard drive? You're telling me that the MP3 file is either "authorized" or "unauthorized" based on its logical location on the drive? This is "more reasonable?"
I think if this happened to me I would immediately sue Apple.
There is no warning on iTunes that ripping a CD is illegal.
Then we could watch the RIAA and Apple duke it out.
Oh how I wish I could mod the parent up for the sig:
In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.
Incredibly appropriate for this thread.
(Of course, the content of parent's post seems awry.)
RIAA, MPAA etc.
So dull.
Gone are the times when such organizations had poetic names like "The Black Hand", "Cosa Nostra", "Camorra".
Nobody's bothered to note in the article summary that there's an updated version upstream: RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized'
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
What I find so damned ironic, is that as I am reading this thread on slashdot, the accompanying "google ads" contained this gem ...
Free Music Files Download
Find More Online Music File Sharing 100% Free & Instant Downloads. Now!
www.musicvideogame.info
Time the RIAA woke up and smelled the roses ? Instead of persecuting the disabled moms, why don't they try going after the big boys with their billions of dollars ready to pay lawyers to fight these assholes ?
Can't we somehow ban the RIAA from legally being able to use anything containing a microprocessor?
Let's see what could be next... I buy a cd, legally; I play the cd at home and listen to a song, and remember it. OH NO! I guess I have now broken the law, because a "copy" of the song is IN MY HEAD (memory). So I suppose what's next is I must forget any song I ever hear from a cd immediately after playing it, or I will be sued. I WILL NEVER BUY A CD AGAIN, riaa. AND ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS AND FRIENDS OF MINE WILL BE ADVISED. Good work, you've "won."
it implies there are "authorized copies" (say, for personal fair use) and "unauthorized copies" (say, for sharing via P2P)
I thought I made a certain point explicit in my last post, but I now see I broke it across multiple sentences. I want to make that point as concisely and explicitly as possible:
Fair Use is unauthorized.
Unauthorized does not mean infringing, unauthorized does not mean illegal.
The implication of "authorized" copy is one where the copyright holder explicitly grants permission. An example of authorized copying is where you pay to download an RIAA song, and you are explicitly authorized to save it as a new copy on your harddrive.
The only implication of "unauthorized" is that the copyright holder has not issues permission. Unauthorized copying my be infringing or it may be noninfringing. One example of unauthorized copying is infringing P2P activity. An second kind of unauthorized copying would be noninfringing copying by a public library under conditions explicitly exempted by law. A third kind of unauthorized copying would the noninfringing Fair Use of a child copying as part of some class project.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What you've said is all well and good until you try to play a DVD with free software. Even though I own a DVD, I cannot legally decrypt the video and audio on the disc because the DMCA makes it illegal. I cannot make fair use backup copies, because consumer level DVD writers cannot write the encrypted keys onto recordable media, and blank media has zeroed out key areas already (AFAIK). The DMCA trumps fair use, the first sale doctrine, and the concept of actually owning media. With the ability to revoke AACS keys and players, no customer can truly own HD content.
have my children.... plz..? :-)
:)
Only if you have the plumbing to accept my genetic deposit
I know my handle has a female ring to it. No offense taken.
Thanks for the adulation, nonetheless.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
... the plumbing to accept my genetic depositScratch that, i'm likely better off not knowing.
No words of wisedom here.
The DMCA alters the fundamental nature of copyright. The simple lock on a diary is a technological device protecting access to a copyrighted work, so possessing lock picks or keys for that diary is technically illegal unless the owner of the copyrighted work (not necessarily any individual diary owner) approves of it. In fact, even the existence of a single book with a lock could make possession of any matching key shape illegal, just as the existence of a DVD makes programs implementing the CSS algorithm illegal. There can be no distinction between mechanical and electronic devices, otherwise purely mechanical computers could break the DMCA with impunity. Even worse, book publishers could put timed or counter based locks on books, and those too would be protected by the DMCA. If the publisher wants people to buy a new copy of the book after two years or after it's been read ten times, who should stop them from exercising the same rights as the MAFIAA? If they put a fingerprint reader on books to tie copies to individuals, that would take care of the first sale doctrine as well. Once all the books are "protected", no one will be authorized to make or own normal copies any more. Do you know anyone who owns a DRM-free movie any more (think Macrovision, not just CSS)?
I think invisible ink counts, too, which makes sources of heat sufficient to brown egg whites illegal (or more obtusely, the knowledge of what happens when you cook an egg should be illegal). The DMCA is nothing less than the attempted destruction of free human knowledge and replacement of it with cheap and illiterate consumerism. I think overturning it will require a court case that brings the physical and mechanical aspects of the DMCA into question, or emphasizes the ability of mechanical devices to perform digital calculations. I think lawmakers and judges are mostly unaware of Turing, and it causes them to make senseless "electronic" laws with absurd consequences.
Yes, and that is the danger, because it's just crazy enough to work.
I'm pretty disappointed with the slashdot comments on this one. The header for this is not correct: It's legal to rip a cd onto your computer and use it. It's not legal to share ripped cds on Kazaa or sell them again. It's legal to copy audio tapes too and video tapes too. Unfortunately people are forgetting the battles previously fought and now that all this HDCP crap now instigated with the cable companies owning the copy standards, when we go full digital people are going to be so pissed free copies can't be made congress will change the law to make it legal.
and legalize marijuana so we can rip + smoke ganja
RIAA is like this: Buy our CDs .. but when you buy and give us money CD is still ours .. so you buy thin air.
I just remembered a song... from
Dire Straits - Money For Nothing
hehe
The next step logically now in this endeavor for the RIAA is to make personal possession of CD's outside of one's legal place of residence a breach of their copyright because they will claim "performance" rights when you listen to the CD's in your car with the windows down!!! This is getting to be so hysterical that I bet you watch;... this might be next.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
I agree with you about the difference between 'authorized' and 'legal'. I still think the point of the lawsuit - and the part that's dropped in all the many stories on this topic - is the 'making available' portion, not the 'unauthorized copying'.
...if they move to a pay-per-listen scheme. There's nothing new or innovative today anyway. I have all the music on CD in my personal possession that I will rip to my heart's content. And I really don't foresee getting anything new because it all sucks.
Now get off of my lawn!
It is just a new kicker that the they tried to sneak in this new theory, that converting files from one's personal cd to an mp3 on one's computer is "unauthorized". The judge, when he asked them whether they were unauthorized, was asking them whether they were "illegal". Their "yes" response is chilling. It is also newsworthy because they have never formally made that argument in court papers before; it is exactly the opposite of what they said to the United States Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster. They are trying to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Howell has no lawyer.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The judge, when he asked them whether they were unauthorized, was asking them whether they were "illegal". Their "yes" response is chilling.
I missed that little nugget actually. And, upon doing some Googling, I apparently missed it when they said the same in the Jammie Thomas case too, which is bizarre.
I'm actually glad they're doing this. I hope they make a number of similar asinine statements and I hope the defendant gets lawyered up by the EFF or similar. I'm not in favor of piracy but, as you say, this is fair use.
> The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this
> month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are
> "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.'"
They are. "Unautorized", however, is not a synonym for illegal. There are many things the owner of a copy of a music recording may legally do without authorization from the owner of the copyright. Making copies for private, noncommerical use is one example. Fair use is another.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It reads
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed
Looks simple doesn't it since the normal person would assume they are talking merely about a "Kazaa" shared folder but it isn't that simple. It becomes complicated since the question from the Judge was if the MP3s themselves were unauthorized.
Now you and I, normally, would assume they only meant a "Kazaa" folder but they left out the wording needed for that in a legal brief where they would have said "and they are in his Kazaa shared folder". Instead they most likely choose to use the wording they did so that with the wording used all copies can be declared unauthorized since almost all folders on a computer are shared folders (ie: you've got a roommate who shares your computer so the copies are not for personal use). They also choose that wording because the law states its illegal to distribute, and prove of distribution must be shown, but the RIAA can't show that they were actually distributed to anyone but their agent who was authorized to receive copies.
Instead of what doing what they were asked to do by the Judge in the case they choose wording with which they can create law if the Judge accepts their wording.
Just ask yourself one question. If you'd been the lawyer answering the Judge's question about the MP3s being authorized would you have said on point that "Once placed his copies in his Kazaa shared folder they were not authorized copies" or "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed
As far as I'm concerned everything thats come out of the RIAA is all smoke and mirrors. Has anyone seen a chain of custody for these alleged "screenshots" from MediaSentry or even how they obtained them? Since even their "Expert" Jacobson, nor any certification authority, hasn't I'm left with a saying from the 90s in my head when I read about one of these cases and thats "Show me the beef!!"
This is not a signature.
Come ooooon people. This is just the RIAA sounding off typically 'Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing' as usual. How are they ever going to know that you have several thousand ripped tracks on your hard drive? It's all quite simple. Just don't put your ripped MP3s in an internet-shared directory. The RIAA doesn't hire psychics that spy on you. Chill!
Heard any good sigs lately?