Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Buckaroo · Dec 31, 2007, 02:36 AM

The record business is after all of us now.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

washingtonpost.com

Rumor · Dec 31, 2007, 02:58 AM

Well this is just peachy. I wonder how far it will go.

turtle777 · Dec 31, 2007, 03:08 AM

WTF ?

Could someone please blow up the RIAA and end all this nonsense for good ?

-t

analogika · Dec 31, 2007, 03:20 AM

This is the RIAA running after the broken dam, trying to fix it with a hammer.

Tyre MacAdmin · Dec 31, 2007, 03:30 AM

WTF is iTunes for then?

CharlesS · Dec 31, 2007, 03:32 AM

Are they trying to kill CD sales or something? Who on earth would buy a CD if they seriously thought they wouldn't be able to put it on their computer or iPod?

What is going on here?

turtle777 · Dec 31, 2007, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

WTF is iTunes for then?

To extort money for the RIAA...

-t

OwlBoy · Dec 31, 2007, 05:20 AM

Rip Mix Burn? hmmm

C.A.T.S. CEO · Dec 31, 2007, 05:46 AM

I can see it now:

"RIAA files suit against 300 million Americans."

His Dudeness · Dec 31, 2007, 06:49 AM

Next, the RIAA is going after people who play music on their cd players letting other people who didn't pay for the cd to hear. That would be illegal music sharing as well.

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 31, 2007, 09:50 AM

I've heard this argument before. The key word is transfer. Ah, legal trickery.

OldManMac · Dec 31, 2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Next, the RIAA is going after people who play music on their cd players letting other people who didn't pay for the cd to hear. That would be illegal music sharing as well.

I read something a week or so ago about how that's happening in England, where , IIRC, some establishment was playing Christmas music too loudly, and their equivalent of the RIAA was trying to collect fees for illegal music distribution!!

osiris · Dec 31, 2007, 10:21 AM

Well, the record industry can just go to hell, really.

But I wouldn't be surprised if something came out of this - like supreme court intervention. Maybe future music will be pay per play, or have Mission Impossible self destruct media that explodes after 1 one play. :/ a ghastly thought.

macmonkey · Dec 31, 2007, 10:25 AM

The suit is actually about sharing the ripped music on Kazaa, so before getting panties in wads, RTFA.

The interesting thing is their rhetoric this time, claiming that just ripping it is illegal (though that's not what the suit is about). There are no rulings on the legality of ripping your own music to your iPod, so the RIAA probably wants to be very careful about how they word these complaints - otherwise it will leave the opportunity open for a judge to rule on the legality of ripping MP3s from CDs.

osiris · Dec 31, 2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by macmonkey

The suit is actually about sharing the ripped music on Kazaa, so before getting panties in wads, RTFA.
.

Oh. Nevermind.

No - wait, they can still go to hell. Yep, pretty sure of that one. $12.99 for a 40 year old recording on a cd....

starman · Dec 31, 2007, 11:05 AM

No, the article clearly states that the RIAA thinks that ripping is illegal.

"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"

It doesn't say anything about Kazaa in there, nor does it imply the use of Kazaa.

Dork. · Dec 31, 2007, 12:06 PM

We did see this a few weeks ago, and the lawyers are using their Sith Lord Mind Powers to their advantage. They are not saying that ripping music CD's is illegal, but they are doing it in a fashion that makes it sound illegal.

First of all, this case is about ripping CD's into a Kazaa shared music folder. Since Kazaa is involved, the party being sued is probably toast, since it's reasonable to assume that in using Kazaa, they intended to share the music with the entire Internet (and the RIAA will assume everyone on the Internet got a copy, and scale their damages accordingly.)

What the RIAA lawyer is saying is that even without using KaZaa, the ripping of music from a CD is an "unauthorized copy". Which, strictly speaking is true, since nobody has a permission slip from the label to make that copy. What they neglect to mention is that not all "unauthorized copies" constitute infringement, and if you are making the copy for your own personal use, you are probably OK. It's only when you sell copies (or share them with the world via KaZaa) where you run into issues. Copyright is not necessarily about making copies in the first place, it's about who has the right to distribute those copies. (although since a single digital copy can be distributed quickly to thousands of people, it has turned into the regulating the copying of and access to digital works via DRM.)

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not 100% sure that Fair Use applies to ripping CD's (although IMHO it should). The funny thing about Fair Use is that it's less of a defense than an excuse. If you were hauled into court on a copyright infringement charge and wanted to claim fair use, you don't say "I did not infringe because of Fair Use protections", you say "I did infringe, but since what I did was within the bounds of fair use I owe nothing". To most people, they say the same thing, but to the lawyer, they are very different!

analogika · Dec 31, 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

Oh. Nevermind.

No - wait, they can still go to hell. Yep, pretty sure of that one. $12.99 for a 40 year old recording on a cd....

Logical fallacy.

If you enjoy it, it doesn't become worth less simply because it's old.

$12.99 for a 400-year-old script printed in a book...

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 01:00 PM

RTFA - the RIAA says the rips are 'unauthorized', not 'illegal'. Sharing the 'unauthorized' rips on Kazaa is what they are suing over. Now, I hate the RIAA as much as the next man, but please, let's read the article.

osiris · Dec 31, 2007, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Logical fallacy.

If you enjoy it, it doesn't become worth less simply because it's old.

$12.99 for a 400-year-old script printed in a book...

Sorry, I love you, but you lose and are incredibly wrong.

A 400 year old manuscript is actually worth something - compared to a mere .25 peice of plastic reproduced by machines.

If the recording was, say, an original one-off, you may have an argument.

analogika · Dec 31, 2007, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

Sorry, I love you, but you lose and are incredibly wrong.

A 400 year old manuscript is actually worth something - compared to a mere .25 peice of plastic reproduced by machines.

I believe you missed the bit of about "printed into a book".

Amazon.com: World of Shakespeare: The Complete Plays and Sonnets of William Shakespeare (38 Volume Library): Books: William Shakespeare

The Complete Works of Shakespeare, for $300.

Any qualms at all?

THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY MUST DIE! DIE I SAY!

Bullsh.t

And the original recording that you're now buying on a $0.25 disc probably cost a couple of ten-to-hundred thousand dollars, in today's money. But that's kind of beside the point.

osiris · Dec 31, 2007, 01:15 PM

Bad comparison. You're embarrassing me.

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 01:16 PM

What's wrong with that?
This is a hardcover set that comes in about 3.5USD per book. If you like, you can download all the content for free. Why must the publishing industry dies?

Buckaroo · Dec 31, 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

RTFA - the RIAA says the rips are 'unauthorized', not 'illegal'. Sharing the 'unauthorized' rips on Kazaa is what they are suing over. Now, I hate the RIAA as much as the next man, but please, let's read the article.

WRONG!!!!!!!

You are the one that can't read. It specifically says that the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right,

Now, you go back and read it before you open your mouth.

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 31, 2007, 02:24 PM

Needs more exclamation points.

His Dudeness · Dec 31, 2007, 02:27 PM

What about 8 tracks? What if we all switched to 8 tracks, then the RIAA can't sue everyone, because they are suing over ripping cd's, not 8 tracks.

Dork. · 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

It specifically says that the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right

That would be like me stating, on this website, that I may have the legal right to punch you in the nose, just for being ugly. If I end up not having that legal right (or you end up not being ugly), I covered my bases by using the word "may".

Let's take a quote from the other thread, from the RIAA:

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

Could you be held legally liable for thousands of dollars worth of damages if you rip CD's? Yes, if you then proceed to share them. Are you breaking the law by simply making the copy? An argument can be made for that, but even if that argument is true, the Fair use Doctrine may legitimize that infringing activity. Everything the RIAA says here is factually correct, but spun to make it seem like merely putting a CD into a computer is illegal. That's why lawyers get paid more than I do.

starman · Dec 31, 2007, 02:46 PM

Why would they even say "may"? You either can or you can't. If you can't, that would make every MP3 player essentially illegal. Do they want to do this to the industry?

nonhuman · Dec 31, 2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Why would they even say "may"? You either can or you can't. If you can't, that would make every MP3 player essentially illegal. Do they want to do this to the industry?

No... MP3 players would still be fine with music that you bought online.

starman · Dec 31, 2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

No... MP3 players would still be fine with music that you bought online.

And what about the music that you put on it BEFORE you could buy stuff online? Then the Supreme Court could say "look, you f'n dumbasses, if you want to say making an MP3 is illegal you should have said it 10 years ago".

nonhuman · Dec 31, 2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by starman

And what about the music that you put on it BEFORE you could buy stuff online? Then the Supreme Court could say "look, you f'n dumbasses, if you want to say making an MP3 is illegal you should have said it 10 years ago".

Uh? So you can't make something illegal that was legal before? Sweet, I'm going to go buy some LSD, then talk to my doctor about prescribing me some heroin!

Dork. · Dec 31, 2007, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

What about 8 tracks? What if we all switched to 8 tracks, then the RIAA can't sue everyone, because they are suing over ripping cd's, not 8 tracks.

There actually is a distinction, since 8-tracks, cassette tapes, and other magnetic media degrade from copy to copy. Making thousands of copies of an 8-track at the same fidelity as the original is an expensive task.

Since CD's are digital, as long as the source CD is undamaged you can make essentially infinitely many copies of it at the same fidelity as the original.

Dork. · Dec 31, 2007, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Why would they even say "may"? You either can or you can't. If you can't, that would make every MP3 player essentially illegal. Do they want to do this to the industry?

Because they are lawyers who are paid to obfuscate. They don't want to kill MP3 players entirely, they just want everyone to think we owe them more money for using an MP3 player without actually stating it and creating an avenue to sue them.

Their best possible outcome would be to have everyone re-buy their music in MP3 format, just like we all re-bought CD's of music that we already had vinyl copies of.

turtle777 · Dec 31, 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by macmonkey

The suit is actually about sharing the ripped music on Kazaa, so before getting panties in wads, RTFA.

Where the heck do you get this from ?
You are wrong !

Originally Posted by Washington Post

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

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.

-t

Shaddim · Dec 31, 2007, 03:39 PM

That's exactly it. They want people to repurchase all the music they have on CD, instead of ripping it to MP3. It could mean $billions$ in revenues to them if they can get the courts to agree with them. It's evil, but brilliant.

Personally, I refuse to pay money for music in a compressed format.

turtle777 · Dec 31, 2007, 03:42 PM

After all the crap the RIAA is pulling, is anybody surprised that people share music ?

Even people who did NOT steal / download any music are now being terrorized and pursued. This is farking ridiculous.

-t

turtle777 · Dec 31, 2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

That's exactly it. They want people to repurchase all the music they have on CD, instead of ripping it to MP3. It could mean $billions$ in revenues to them if they can get the courts to agree with them. It's evil, but brilliant.
.

So they would probably claim that a burned CD from a legally paid & downloaded music is also copyright infringement.

Basically, if I want to listen to the same music on CD and iPod, I need to buy it twice, no matter in what order I acquired the music.

-t

starman · Dec 31, 2007, 03:52 PM

I wonder how much of a backlash this will cause.

boots · Dec 31, 2007, 04:12 PM

Um...sales will continue to plummet?

I just plain don't bother anymore. The music on radio is crap, in general, and I'm just not connected enough to know what's worth listening to on the independent circuit. Maybe if I was still a student I'd be more upset, but recorded music really has faded from my life. My iPod is filled with stuff I got when I was a student.

I suspect that this is what the backlash will be, only larger scale. People will find other entertainment. Perhaps the independent labels will remain as strong as ever. But the big labels are not going to survive if something fundamental doesn't change (like caring about music instead of money).

I do like to go to the bars where there are bands. (So I'm not anti-music.)

SeSawaya · Dec 31, 2007, 04:30 PM

Big labels are VERY scared. 90% of the big recording studios have closed their doors for the favor of the "at home" studio. Independents will rule soon enough.

35% (or something close) of ALL albums released this year where in digital format ONLY! No physical CDs - From Jobs himself right?

things are changing fast, wonder why they are fighting and not running with it like a little fruit company we all know. There's even more money out there to gobble up now, they are pushing their plates away.

I was told by a ASCAP person that it IS illegal for someone to listen to radio from the car next door at a stop light.

Seriously.....WTF?™

------>Off to a New years gig!!

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

WRONG!!!!!!!

You are the one that can't read. It specifically says that the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right,

Now, you go back and read it before you open your mouth.

Before being such a dick, please make sure that you are actually correct. While it may well not be, they are not suing anyone for transferring songs from one format to another. I cannot find anything on their website to substantiate your claim, in fact, the closest there is is this:

CharlesS · Dec 31, 2007, 04:47 PM

Well, that's what the article is saying. Look at the quotes in turtle777's post in this thread as well as a few more:

Originally Posted by The Article

"The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

...

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.

Or you could just read the article. Is the article correct? I don't know, but what the article itself is saying is pretty clear, so the "RTFA" type posts are really not needed.

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 05:06 PM

I'm sorry, I guess I should have said "RTFRIAAW".

glideslope · Dec 31, 2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

I can see it now:

"RIAA files suit against 300 million Americans."

LOL, more likely 300 million Americans eliminate the RIAA.

starman · Dec 31, 2007, 05:30 PM

What I mean by backlash was, what if everyone in the US just gave the RIAA the big finger and started openly sharing EVERYTHING? I mean, if it wasn't for the fact that I have a family to support, I'd actually consider that. The RIAA can't find everyone.

glideslope · Dec 31, 2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Before being such a dick, please make sure that you are actually correct. While it may well not be, they are not suing anyone for transferring songs from one format to another. I cannot find anything on their website to substantiate your claim, in fact, the closest there is is this:

I'm convinced. You are a RIAA plant in this forum.

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 05:33 PM

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

peeb · Dec 31, 2007, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by glideslope

I'm convinced. You are a RIAA plant in this forum.

I hate the RIAA as much as the next person, but I am still opposed to just making **** up about them that is not true.

olePigeon · Dec 31, 2007, 06:18 PM

There's an age-old copyright law that allows for people to transfer books, manuscripts, pictures, music recordings, etc. to newer, compatible media.

However, there's some ambiguity that's allowing lawsuits to occur and the RIAA is trying to capitalize on it. I think it was Sony who sued Creative claiming that music stored on a CD isn't music, it's computer data that's interpreted into music (the same goes for MP3s, etc.) They're arguing that once a recording is digitized, it is no longer susceptible to the fair-use copyright law because it's no longer music, and therefore can't be converted to a new medium.

An interesting side effect is that LPs are becoming more and more popular again. Fair-use is still applicable to records.

Buckaroo · Dec 31, 2007, 06:41 PM

I don't know if LP's will ever be popular ever again. Does fair use apply to the music received via a Radio signal? I don't remember it being a problem recording songs off the radio onto cassette tape.

Can we do the same legally from the Radio to computer?