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. imagine that by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment I posted in a firehose story (which took all of 30 seconds to realize the summary was simplistic and wrong):

    More Info

    here and here

    Looks like the person in question was using Kazaa, which listed his mp3 files, although they weren't actually shared (uhh ... does kazaa publish them if they're not shared?) Media Sentry found them (but didn't actually download them?). He represented himself and lost big time.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  2. Nope, try again... by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

    As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for 'old-fashioned' song downloading.

    Still wrong.

    They sued him over uploading, or at least, having the files in question in his Kazaa shared folder.

    Yes, they may have "taken the gloves off" regarding their terminology, but this case has the exact same underlying "offense" as the thousands of other RIAA lawsuits we've heard about in the past few years.

  3. 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.

  4. They're right. by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not authorised by the copyright holder.
    Fortunately, you don't need their authorisation, so that's OK.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.