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.'"
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Also, remember back when the President was on TV and was asked what was on his iPod... Beatles. The only way it got there was if he (by the RIAA definition) pirated it.
Lets hope they press charges. It might get this issue sorted out sooner rather than later.
Lets hope they press charges. It might get this issue sorted out sooner rather than later.
They don't want it sorted out. They know they'd lose. The want the confusion and penny ante change they collect because their other income models are evaporating and extortion is all they have left.
Infuriate left and right
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
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?
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.
Fraudulent article, summary, and title. While technically correct that the RIAA is filing suits against consumers who rip CDs, its also technically correct to state that the RIAA is filing suits against consumers who listen to music. Or that the justice department is seeking the death penalty against criminals who jaywalk. Technically correct, but that's not what the suit is over. He is being sued for making copyright music available for download on the internet. They are merely stating that the files he legally owns are included. And they are unauthorized copies. They never said illegal, they said unauthorized. Putting spinnerz on your phat alloy rims isn't ILLEGAL, but its not a dealer authorized modification (in some states it may be illegal as a "distracting device", like undercarriage lights are most places) I haven't heard of people being arrested for unauthorized biographies, either. If the studio specifically granted him permission to copy these files to his hard-drive, and share them online, then they wouldn't have a case, you see. So the fact that he was not granted permission to rip them, even though he doesn't need it, is important. You see, if a movie star sues the author of a biography for libel, the fact that it's unauthorized does matter, even though the unauthorized bit isn't illegal.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
You just broadly communicated a method to circumvent a copy protection device
You mean like this?
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
That being said, I still think the RIAA should be thrown to the lions. Just because they're not 100% wrong all the time doesn't mean they should be given free reign to terrorize their customers.
The CB App. What's your 20?