Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized'

Posted by Zonk on from the so-it's-only-halfway-evil dept.

An Engadget article notes that the Washington Post RIAA article we discussed earlier today may have been poorly phrased. The original article implied that the Association's suit stemmed from the music ripping. As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies' ... "something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."

4 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. The RIAA is correct for once! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These copies are unauthorized!

    However, these copies are not illegal.

    Under fair use, you are allowed to make copies for your personal use, and it is perfectly legal.

    In this case, "unauthorized" is used in the sense of "Britney Spears Unauthorized Biography" instead of "Britney Spears Authorized Biography". Both are perfectly legal.

  2. A sad sign of the times... by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When "unauthorized" is automatically equated to "illegal" we have a problem in our society. Are we required to ask for authorization from someone to do everything now?

  3. Re:imagine that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Misleading stories are no stranger to slashdot of course.

    The amazing thing is that we actually have a new story to correct the old?! In nearly 10 years I don't think I've ever seen something so close to an actual retraction on slashdot!

  4. Re:They are plainly unauthorized copies, no tricke by KB3LWJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's an interesting quote from one of the legal briefs in the case:

    "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs" [Supplemental Brief, page 15, lines 16-18, emphasis added].

    The phrasing that they used seems to indicate that the MP3 files were authorized until they were placed into the shared folder. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that this means absolutely nothing, but it's still an interesting notion.

    What it seems that they are saying is that the MP3's are authorized until used for an illegal purpose (i.e. file-sharing). Amazon's MP3 Music Service TOS seems to support this interpretation. It encourages users to make backup copies of MP3's they purchase (which would be authorized); and, if you violate any of the terms (such as infringing upon the copyright of the MP3), your license to use the music terminates, making the MP3 unauthorized. While the music in this case wasn't purchased from Amazon, it seems like the same philosophy is involved.