RIAA- copying own CDs for personal use as illegal as posting them online

[rkr1958]

You, too, could be sued for thousands of dollars by the major record companies — even if you've never once illegally downloaded music.

That's because at least one lawyer for the Recording Industry Association of America, the Big Four record companies' lobbying arm and primary legal weapon, considers the copying of songs from your own CDs to your own computer, for your own personal use, to be just as illegal as posting them online for all to share, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.

...

Copying a song you've paid for in CD form is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'" Sony BMG top lawyer Jennifer Pariser testified during cross-examination in the Jammie Thomas case in early October.

full news story

[Dv8ted2]

This is misconstrued. Merely copying the files is unauthorized. They were referring to ripping your files, then sharing them with everyone under the sun. That is what is illegal.

[edDV]

Personal use was ruled legal by the US Supreme Court for recording devices (e.g. audio cassette, VCR) but the DMCA limits on breaking encryption remain untested at the Supreme Court.

[saggitarius]

Actually, I think the RIAA has gone screwy and are actually saying that it is BOTH legal to copy CDs that you own but illegal to have those copied CDs on your computer.

Read on http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/riaa-says-rippi.html#more

So what about all the CDs I own and have since copied to iTunes? Does this mean that my iTunes library is now illegal since it is copies of music stored on my computer?

[Dv8ted2]

Actually, I think the RIAA has gone screwy and are actually saying that it is BOTH legal to copy CDs that you own but illegal to have those copied CDs on your computer.

Read on http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/riaa-says-rippi.html#more

So what about all the CDs I own and have since copied to iTunes? Does this mean that my iTunes library is now illegal since it is copies of music stored on my computer?

No, because you are not sharing them with 500,000 people.

[Rich86]

Why would anyone pay attention to RIAA posturing comments?
We all know they won't be happy until they can collect a fee every time you listen to a particular copyrighted piece of music - even if you are simply recalling something you heard in the past.

[Dv8ted2]

Personal use was ruled legal by the US Supreme Court for recording devices (e.g. audio cassette, VCR) but the DMCA limits on breaking encryption remain untested at the Supreme Court.

This will probably go untested for quite some time. SCOTUS has only so many cases they can handle in a year, and none of the cases has gone to SCOTUS at this time.

There is a huge gray area where copyrights are concerned. It seems as if analog copying was ok, but the entertainment industry is freaking out about the digital conversion. They are trying to distinguish and say that you only bought a license to hear the product.

[Dv8ted2]

Why would anyone pay attention to RIAA posturing comments?
We all know they won't be happy until they can collect a fee every time you listen to a particular copyrighted piece of music - even if you are simply recalling something you heard in the past.

You forgot to add that if you hum a song, they would like you to pay a fee.

[rkr1958]

The RIAA is going way over the top and alienating most of its customers. Treating your customers with such contempt and mistrust is not a good business model.

I don't mind supporting our favorite artist and buying their CDs (my wife and I probably buy 15 or so CDs a year), but I have no expectation of buying the SAME CD more than one time.

[jagabo]

The RIAA has gone on the record before claiming that ripping a song from a CD you own, for personal use, is a copyright violation:

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copyi...-stealing.html

[Dv8ted2]

The RIAA has gone on the record before claiming that ripping a song from a CD you own, for personal use, is a copyright violation:

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copyi...-stealing.html

The Home audio recording act is in direct contradiction to this. There are fees that are paid to the industry to compensate for copying. They can take this stealing manure and sell it to someone else, because I was not born yesterday.

[TheFamilyMan]

This seems like fox "sensationalizing" a case. IMO that quote by the lawyer was an opinion and not a legal fact, but I could see the RIAA posturing to making digital format conversions illegal, i.e. you are only licensed to play the music in the digital format in which you purchased it, whereas analog format conversions are OK as ruled by the courts. Now what about all those vinyl LPs that I've recorded as PCM, burnt to CDs and loaded into my ipod....

[jagabo]

The AHRA only covers devices which implement SCMS.

[tug_hill2]

Hello Group, Considering the RIAA thread -

I'm wondering how the RIAA is going to enforce all of this. !?!


Tug_Hill

[Alan69]

You forgot to add that if you hum a song, they would like you to pay a fee.

Thinking the song to hum it.
Humming the song. (Public performance fee.)
Hearing yourself hum.
Thinking the song again from hearing it.

So it's actually 4 fees, they just simplify it into one for you, $1200 per hum. You're a thief if you hum one and don't pay.. They're also working on how to charge you storage fees for having the song in your head in the first place. Then it jumps to 6 fees, one more for storage and another for accessing it.

The 'nickel and dimed to death' commercial was originally written for them, but their lawyers advised them against using it since it might give some of the families the idea to sue them for loss of their loved ones..

[TheFamilyMan]

I wonder how many of these record company executives or RIAA lawyers own ipods or mp3 players? And if they do, I'd love to see where their playlists came from.

[andie41]

All of these lawsuits and threats by the RIAA and MPAA are very troubling. My daughter recently bought an 60GB ipod and wants to transfer a couple of her purchased DVD's to the ipod, and of course a large number of songs. As she lives in Canada, I believe this is legal, but she is going to be traveling into the US and I am concerned about US customs, and the enormous power currently being exercised by customs. It doesn't have to be "the law", customs agents have a lot of leeway when it comes to defending the "homeland."

[Dv8ted2]

customs agents have a lot of leeway when it comes to defending the "homeland."

Defending against music -

Who would have thought that music would be our downfall?

[msspurlock]

Let's be clear about this.

I can understand people finding this hard to believe, but this is what the RIAA is doing.

They are trying to get a ruling that if you copy the music you buy, in any way, you are a criminal.

It has nothing to do with how, or whether, you distribute the music.

They are NOT talking about filesharing.

[Alan69]

"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."


You did read the bolded part? They aren't just talking about your own shared folder either, this person made it available for upload by putting it into his Kazaa shared folder. This wasn't something just going to his own use..


And from other mention about this case, there was another part about copying it for personal use but then giving the original to a friend and stealing one copy. Likewise a real violation since it's being legally entitled to the original that even allows the argument of copying for your own use in another format/player..

[Supreme2k]

On the other hand, HOW will anyone know that you've ripped your CD unless you (illegally) share it?

If there is ever a law that makes it illegal for men to wear swim trunks to bed, there should NEVER be a case of someone being caught doing so. If "the law" finds you in bed with trunks on, either they or you have much bigger things about which to worry.

Same with ripping. If "they" find out, either you've been doing something bad that warranted your PC being searched (which won't necessarily be admissible), or they are in trouble for illegally obtaining that info.

That's what some people don't get (I'm looking at you "Copying is the same as theft/burglary/car-jacking" crowd) is that there is no missing object. It's not like there's a "missing" mp3 file from the original disc and you're a prime suspect. No one is actually going to say "We heard that you were ripping your CDs", unless you're sharing them on P2P (that's right, dumb-ass kazaa users).

[TheFamilyMan]

The AHRA only covers devices which implement SCMS.

Read this and become informed, that is if you can trust wikipedia.

[jagabo]

The AHRA only covers devices which implement SCMS.

Read this and become informed, that is if you can trust wikipedia.

From the Wikipedia article:

The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices.

Covered "digital audio recording devices" are those which implement SCMS.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html

[Noahtuck]

"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."


You did read the bolded part? They aren't just talking about your own shared folder either, this person made it available for upload by putting it into his Kazaa shared folder. This wasn't something just going to his own use..


And from other mention about this case, there was another part about copying it for personal use but then giving the original to a friend and stealing one copy. Likewise a real violation since it's being legally entitled to the original that even allows the argument of copying for your own use in another format/player..

Did you read the whole article ??
I did not see where it stated he actually HAD kazaa on his pc... it just said,

Jeffrey Howell of Scottsdale stands accused of placing 54 music files in a specific "shared" directory on his personal computer that all users of KaZaA and other "peer-to-peer" software could access

No where did i see that he actually had this software on his pc..... anything anywhere on your pc can be shared by These app's IF you have them installed.
Window's by default when installed, put's in a "shared docs" folder within which there is a "Shared Music" "Shared Pictures" & "Shared Videos" folder.... Hmmmmm...... better go after M$ for facilitating the problem!!!!!

However, on page 15 of a supplemental brief responding to the judge's technical questions about the case, the RIAA's Phoenix lawyer, Ira M. Schwartz, states that the defendant is also liable simply for the act of creating "unauthorized copies" — by ripping songs from CDs.

In other words, according to Schwartz's logic, every single person who's ever "ripped" a CD for portable listening on an iPod or other MP3 player could be liable for astronomical damages.

Sound's pretty clear what these crack monkeys are saying!!!!!

Hence the title of the article...
Lawyer: Ripping MP3s Illegal, Grounds for Lawsuit

Can't wait till they show up at my door and try to police what i do with my legally bought cd's on my pc in my home 8)

They going to start using the excuse, well i saw a cd-r laying on his truck seat so we had probable cause to search and impound his vehicle

They are just way over the top...

[somebodeez]

Let's take a trip on Web Archive's Way Back machine, shall we? (I call window seat! )
All buckled in? Ok, here we go to a time when the RIAA's very own website said something differently

http://web.archive.org/web/20060221113155/http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand

What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right.

I am curious as to whether it would matter in court if the person involved in the lawsuit ripped the CDs during the time when the RIAA's website stated the above? I think it'd be a very interesting point to bring up.

[Rich86]

The more the RIAA and MPAA get their puppet politicians to enact new laws which erode our "fair use" rights - and the more these organizations abuse their customers - and the more they cripple our use of their products with DRM and intentional flaws in their optical media based products - the less product I buy. It's my little contribution to demonstrate they are running down the wrong road. Their revenue stream is heading down due to entertainment dollars being redirected at other, more enjoyable apparently, sources of entertainment. The entire entertainment economy is booming big time - and these folks have convinced themselves that banning fair use concepts will somehow magically turn into significant revenue dollars to them. It's all misguided nonsense. They should take all those lawyer and copy protection fees and salaries and put the money to better use - like quality artists and products!

[moviebuff2]

I think that will be tremendously interesting to find out whether children of the lawyers working on behalf of the RIAA have ever downloaded any copyrighted materials or have ever ripped their CD/DVD onto their hard drives.

I'd love to see their "law-upholding" parents take their own children to courts and/or send letters demanding money to their own addresses, if the children still live at home.

A MILLENIUM FARCE, INDEED!

[TheFamilyMan]

Give Fox news the credit for sensationalizing this case. If you read the brief they quote (and have a link to), and especially the page they reference, this case is specifically about kazaa file sharing of copyrighted music that the defendant happened to have ripped from CDs he owned. Fox chose to lift key passages from this brief and even got some other "legal expert" to make a comment on it (out of context), and added the BS statements from the sony lawyer, to make this a sensational story. So calm down, the sky isn't falling (yet).

[moviebuff2]

Fox News = Newsmax.com.

My 2-cents.

[jagabo]

I think that will be tremendously interesting to find out whether children of the lawyers working on behalf of the RIAA have ever downloaded any copyrighted materials or have ever ripped their CD/DVD onto their hard drives.

This has already happened at least once. There have also been incidents where the RIAA/MPAA have used copyrighted photos on their web site without permission, and used open source software without fullfilling the open source license requirements. Sorry, I don't have links.

Some more links on the current story though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=?articleID=205207712