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.'"
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...
No, as those were analog sources. They cant use the DMCA in those cases. Why do you think there is this big push to 100% digital?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
Actually, it seems he shared them via kazaa and that's why the RIAA is suing him. You didn't really think a Slashdot article's summary would be correct, did you?
E pluribus unum
Slashdot's summary seems quite correct and accurate. It's actually the linked article (from the Washington Post) that seems suspicious of omitting that minor yet vital fact.
The industry did try to prevent people ripping LPs to cassettes back in the day. That's why you pay a tax on blank media now.
I believe it actually _is_ illegal to copy a CD for personal use in the UK.
Fortunately it's a law that generally gets disregarded by pretty much everybody.
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?
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.
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.
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)
I believe that it also has to be copy protection. One of the issues with the deCSS was that CSS isn't a copy protection mechanism. It merely dictates which devices may play the DVD. I could have, even prior to deCSS made as many copies of a disc as I wanted to, they would just be bitwise copies and have the same DRM attached as the original.
But, if you purchase a CD, any one with the official Phillips CD logo on it, then you are guaranteed to have no copy protection on it. Phillips has been quite good about requiring that any disc with that logo on it be played on any CD player that has ever been made, which effectively prevents DRM systems from being put on to a licensed disc.
Phillips in on record as saying that placing their CD logo onto any disc which doesn't conform to their standards represents trademark infringement. And realistically, that is the way that it should be, kind of a reminder that IP can also be beneficial to consumers as well.
On a side note, with every single story along these lines, and the RIAA press release that goes along with, I am more and more glad that I don't do business with them. If they want my money to fund their crusade, they're going to have to do so responsibly and in conformance with the laws of the US. All of them, including the ones that indicate that you can't bring known fraudulent cases to court.
lol, mod that up please...
I think something completely different is what is usually mentioned. I think the big change is simply driven by going from a market dictated market to a consumer dictated market. In other words, we don't want it your way, we want it our way. At whatever pricepoint we think is reasonable (probably somewhere around $0.10 per song) and in whatever format we want.
As long as that doesn't happen piracy is here to stay, and when it does happen you have to hope that the piracy infrastructure is not so well entrenched that people will not even bother to switch to legal stuff anymore. The longer the wait the larger the chance that the music industry will not survive.
If a significantly large portion of the population commits a crime (say going 20 km above the speed limit) it technically still is a crime but the actual enforcement is no longer feasible. That only works when the percentage of criminals to honest citizens is small enough to warrant enforcement. Past that point the judicial system simply breaks down.
MP3 Search Engine
"Effective", at least in the equivalent UK legislation, is defined in the laws in question as pretty much meaning "one that exists". NOT "one that works". As I understand it a similar definition exists in the DMCA. I'm no law expert, but I think that the definition of a word within a law overrules any general interpretation of that word.
Dear Taliban/Al Queda/Nutso Islamic Terroritst,
RIAA has a big image of Muhammad in all their offices and regularly mock the good name of Islam. Just thought you'd like to know.
~
I thought this same exact case was discussed earlier this week, and that it was the copies in the Kaaza sharing folder that were unauthorized:
.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."
"In Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA claims that "[once] Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=953494
Odd how both the summary and the Washington Post article skip that particular fact.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.