RIAA suing citizen for copying legally purchased CDs to PC

Sure, we've heard RIAA-admiring lawyers affirm that ripping your own CDs is in fact "stealing," but it seems the aforementioned entity is putting its money where its mouth is in a case against Jeffrey Howell. Reportedly, the Scottsdale, Arizona resident is being sued by the RIAA, and rather than Mr. Howell just writing a check and calling it a day, he's fighting back in court. Interestingly, it seems that the industry is maintaining that "it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into their computer." Ira Schwartz, the industry's lawyer in the case, is arguing that MP3 files created on his computer from legally purchased CDs are indeed "unauthorized copies," and while we've no idea what will become of all this, we suppose you should go on and wipe those personal copies before you too end up in handcuffs.

Update: We got some more info on the case -- it looks like Jeffrey's actually being sued for illegal downloading, not ripping, but this whole "ripping is illegal" tactic is still pretty distasteful. Check out this post for the full story.

[Via BlogRunner]

[Jon Graft @ Dec 29th 2007 6:58PM]

Screw the RIAA

[Mr.Tech @ Dec 29th 2007 6:59PM]

I second that! The RIAA organization is pure evil!

[computer.dude.28 @ Dec 29th 2007 7:17PM]

Now we must wonder if the next WMP and iTunes version will still have ripping capabilities.

[Chuckles McGee @ Dec 29th 2007 7:21PM]

Lol, if the RIAA wins this case, then every pre-iTunes iPod owner would HAVE to have violated copyright law. The RIAA might as well get a list of iPod owners and subpoema them.

[DarkLightConnection @ Dec 29th 2007 7:32PM]

The RIAA lawyers should come and see how a local radio station I did some engineering for works

All the announcers bring in their -personal- (ie. not licensed for public use) CD's collection (mostly original discs, but, you know, some bring copies), on a main computer they rip any new tracks to mp3 and label them, they are stored on a network HDD and there is a database they can search realtime and play any song, this is done so that an announcer can play a requested song that the listener listened to when another announcer was in turn (as long as it fits the style of the program in progress, BTW) as well as leaving a playlist for when there's no announcer... as you can see, they're not only copying over CDs that were intended for personal use, but they're streaming the copies to the air


And why would it be a good idea to bring those lawyers in here?

--Because they would hopefully die of a heart failure ¬_¬

PS. This is not a reply to Jon, I did it so that my comment appears on the first page... but I agree with him nonetheless

[Harry Reifschneider @ Dec 29th 2007 8:51PM]

Good for him for fighting back
We need to know how to send financial support
Get us an address or a paypal account to send money for a fund to help with legal fees
We need to bitch slap these SOBs

[vlute @ Dec 29th 2007 8:52PM]

Did I not see pictures ages ago of prezzy bush with an ipod? Whats the chances those tracks on there are ripped from a CD, if so, can someone sue him? I think that would be best RIAA vs Bush...the smackdown to find the most evil!!!!!

[snafle @ Dec 29th 2007 9:14PM]

DarkLightConnection:

In the UK at least, DJs and Radio Stations have a dispensation from the act because they have bought a performance license for the music- they can aquire it through almost any means (that doesn't involve redistributing it eg bittorent) and then broadcast it. I'm not sure how it works in America but I imagine it's the same.

[Asha @ Dec 29th 2007 9:14PM]

AMEN!!!! I can see their beef about people sharing MP3's (not that it stops me from downloading), but a person DEFINITELY has the right to rip their own honest bought CD to their computer.
They really want no sympathy at all.

[Terc @ Dec 29th 2007 9:27PM]

Uh oh, George Bush better watch out! The Beatles have never released iTunes tracks... yet, according to his interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb7iOvS7Akc He's got them on his iPod. I wonder if the RIAA will go after him next?

[DarkLightConnection @ Dec 29th 2007 9:35PM]

@ snafle: Interesting point.. will see how it works here on Mexico... I don't know how it works on the US of A either

[William @ Dec 29th 2007 11:56PM]

Wow, thats it. Any qualms I had about downloading music just went out the window. Sorry to all the recording artists out there but you got in bed with these guys so my sympathy is gone.

[Znarfaggle @ Dec 30th 2007 12:17AM]

Fuck the RIAA. this is stupid, when are they gonna get shot?

[Amber @ Dec 30th 2007 12:58AM]

In the words of MC Lars:
"Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic's up in my face like, "Don't steal our songs Lars,"
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R's
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it's wrong"

[DAZA @ Dec 30th 2007 1:52AM]

I want to know how they found out he was ripping CDs on his computer?

[Merenwen @ Dec 30th 2007 1:54AM]

RIAA Vs Ipoders, PMP users, Torrenters and P2P users....let the W O R L D W A R III Begin...!!!!

RIAA's Ass will be owned man seriously...!!! bigtime... thass the way of the future... they have to deal with it...

R I A A U S U C K !!!

[Andrew @ Dec 30th 2007 1:53AM]

Before I write all this, I'd like to point out that I've ripped all my audio CD's and think this interpretation of the law is half-ass backwards for sure. That said, the law *does* apply.

Think of buying an audio CD as getting a pass to rent a certain movie an unlimited number of times. You can rent and watch the movie whenever you like, just as you can pop in and play the audio CD you bought as many times as you like.

However just because you are allowed to rent and watch the video as often as you like, it is still not legal to rip the movie to your own collection and watch it that way. No, you're not profiting, no, the sellers aren't losing anything, and yet I think we can all agree that would be in violation of copyright laws.

This works out the same way. If you wanted to rip your audio cd's, zip them and leave them for archive purposes (ie if your cd gets a scratch), you could do that. However just because you bought a copy of the tracks does *not* mean you own the actual tracks, and thus do not own reproduction rights. When you rip the audio CD and put it on your mp3 player, you *are* reproducing it, which is not a right that you purchased along with the CD.

That's why it is illegal, but like I said, it's a screwed up law, and the RIAA is very much a dinosaur for trying to enforce it.

[Com4 @ Dec 30th 2007 3:42AM]

@ William

Seriously, why should we be so worried about getting sued for downloading music when we can get sued just as easily for buying it!!

[Carbonize @ Dec 30th 2007 6:09AM]

I'm with DAZA. How the feck did they know they had copied the CD's?

[Steve @ Dec 30th 2007 11:46AM]

@Andrew,

No... buying a CD means EXACTLY that you own the tracks contained therein. You're not laying claim to the masters, but the copies that you have purchased are your exclusive property (until you choose to destroy or transfer that property). That's why (most) fair-use advocates don't support the library borrower or netflix copier (or subscription DRM-ripper) -- because there is no expectation of ownership in those circumstances, therefore no right to duplicate, archive, or transfer those properties.

[blisteringriffs @ Dec 30th 2007 2:02PM]

To Steve:

Andrew is correct, you are not. You have NOT purchased the tracks therein. You've purchased a license to play them back from the CD. You've physically purchased the CD. But you have NOT purchased the right to reproduce them or make copies, and ripping to mp3 is, in a very real and legal sense, making a copy. Andrew is correct, you are 100% completely dead wrong, displaying the sort of ignorance I'd expect of someone who's never read the copyright act. And that's fine, because it's complicated and not really important to most of us, but jesus dude, don't pretend you know what you're talking about when you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the law.

That admonishment to morons aside, the RIAA is not the problem. Congress is the problem. CONGRESS controls the copyright act, and they have the power to change it. The RIAA is doing what we should expect them to do: they're taking advantage of the law. If they sue somebody for ripping legally purchased CDs to a hard drive, they're only taking advantage of the rights WE gave them, through our elected representatives. Beating up on the RIAA may be immediately satisfying, but it won't accomplish anything. We need congress to change the law...right after they end the war, save social security, fix American healthcare, and solve our energy crisis.

[Ross @ Dec 30th 2007 3:15PM]

To bliseringriffs and andrew:

You should take a look at section 107 of the Copyright Act sometime. The doctrine of "fair use" was originally established over court precedents before it was added to the act.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

If you take a look at Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417), you will see that it is one of the only cases where copying a complete work was established as fair use. The only difference here is that I would consider this "library-building" instead of timeshifting (one of the hinging points of the Betamax case) and I'm actually glad it's going before the courts. If the RIAA loses, it sets a precedent of what we all considered to be fair use up until this point. Hopefully when the court starts leaning towards the side of the consumer, they won't drop the case but I imagine they will in order to avoid setting that precedent.

I would tend to agree that you are merely purchasing an unlimited license to listen to the songs and you own the media it is recorded on, but the nature of copying the media is strictly for noncommercial use and will make no impact whatsoever on the potential market for that particular work. You could argue that it is impacting legal downloading services, but you have cases where not all music on CDs is available to download and it would be asinine for the courts to side with the RIAA and tell us that we will have to re-buy all of our music in digital format. In this case, it's the RIAA being greedy and I do not support that.

You could say that I'm a biased consumer that is strictly anti-RIAA and I do have about 2,000 songs on my computer that I have the CDs for sitting in a case a few feet from me (come get me). I try to maintain the best interest for the artist and the consumer and co-own an independent record label. I'm all for the rights of owners of copyrighted works (which is traditionally the record labels), but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[stipes @ Dec 30th 2007 3:37PM]

Andrew:

You're logic is a bit flawed there. The only reason why it is de facto illegal to back up a DVD movie is because their is encryption and copy prevention technology built into the distribution medium. This means that the DVD is protected under the DMCA, and backing it up to your library means that you have to bypass the DRM (and thus violate Title II of the DMCA). With an audio CD, there is no such copy protection system (and it has to be a copy protection system in good-faith, so some could argue that the system implemented by Sony/BMG in the rootkit scandal doesn't qualify under the DMCA either, but that's another story). Because of this, backing up an audio CD is in no way the same as backing up a DVD. The legality of backing up a non-protected digital medium into another form has not been officially decided by the courts, but it is not currently illegal either.

[outsider @ Dec 30th 2007 6:57PM]

@Andrew

The reason it is illegal to rip a movie from a DVD is that a DVD has built in encryption DeCSS. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection like that.

With audio CDs there is no encryption, there is no copy protection. In fact there are specific parts of copyright law that allow for format shifting and creating backups for your own use. It is still illegal to download mp3s, even if you own the CD but you are allowed to make copies of your own music.

[Evan @ Dec 29th 2007 6:59PM]

May I be the first to say: FUCK THE RIAA!

[Willy @ Dec 29th 2007 7:11PM]

Preach to me brother!

[Brian @ Dec 29th 2007 7:36PM]

Amen. Show your support from the roof tops.

If this case is won, it'll be time to thin their herd.

[Jamie Marsden @ Dec 29th 2007 8:20PM]

In all seriousness, it is pointless to make statements of hate about the RIAA. The laws that they are relying here are standard contract laws - it is printed across the front of the CD on the licence, and is also in the copyright act provisions that you cannot make unauthorised copies. If you really want to change anything, then lobby your congressman to propose changes to the law.

[Carl Vitullo @ Dec 29th 2007 9:00PM]

CAAAAAN YOU DIG IT?????

[Jon Graft @ Dec 29th 2007 9:06PM]

I would have said that, but I thought Engadget has a language filtering system so I decided against it! :-P

[Nogami @ Dec 30th 2007 4:09AM]

Better idea. Don't buy any of their products. Remember, if you are purchasing CDs, Music Videos, etc from a store (or on iTunes), you are SUPPORTING the RIAA.

If they don't get money, they go out of business. Good riddance. Spend your money on local bands, or on labels that aren't RIAA members.

[trevor @ Dec 29th 2007 11:23PM]

@Carl Vitullo:

(with iPod hooked up to stereo, making the clicker noise rhythmically)
"LAW-Y-ERS... come out to PLAAAAAAAY...."

;)

[crystalsinger @ Dec 30th 2007 12:36AM]

FAIL

[asphxiat3d @ Dec 30th 2007 11:25AM]

I say they contact all the bands and see if they even give a flying fuck.

[Seung-Hwan @ Dec 29th 2007 6:59PM]

RIAA must have some good lobbyists and powerful politician friends.

[Murali @ Dec 29th 2007 7:59PM]

No doubt about Mr.....

[Flashpoint @ Dec 29th 2007 6:59PM]

In the very beggining of the RIAA/music piracy bullshit, I'd heard many times that if you purchase a CD, you are allowed to upload it to your own MP3 player under "fair use policy".

You cannot theoretically call an MP3 a "copy" because an MP3 is a compressed codec version of another file which does not include every element the original had.

I don't think these lawyers know what the hell they are talkin about.

[Taylor @ Dec 29th 2007 7:28PM]

So does that mean if you burn a CD from those compressed mp3s and give it to your friend, that that is legal?

[Andrew @ Dec 29th 2007 8:16PM]

I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about...

First of all, fair use is a court defense, not a practice or policy. You don't just say "under fair use I'm doing this." You do it, and then if you get sued, you claim fair use.

Second, the validity of a fair use claim is judged based on a 4 point balancing test. The result of that is that "Fair Use" is like the pirate code...More just guidelines.

That said, the only way I could really see this situation being affected by fair use is if the RIAA claims re-encoding the CD as MP3's is creating your own work that is a derivative that is superseding the object.

As long as your keep it for yourself, however, I don't see as how he would lose this case, even if he is superseding the object, he isn't replacing it in its market or indeed affecting the market in any way...

[durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ Dec 29th 2007 8:51PM]

@andrew... tldr

[trevor @ Dec 29th 2007 11:32PM]

@durr:

because it wasn't written in internet acronyms?

[crystalsinger @ Dec 30th 2007 12:40AM]

Interesting. So perhaps an MP3 is like an impressionist watercolour of a photograph. Maybe it's an "artistic interpretation" of the original work. Maybe not subject to copyright at all...?

That would be very very nice.

[Andrew @ Dec 30th 2007 1:38AM]

@crystalsinger

Hmm, not really. What you're describing would be more like if you made a techno remix of a song. That should fly because not only would it not replace the object in the market, it would be transformative in that it is a new work, using the old one to build on it and add to it, and indeed expand creativity, which is really the entire point of copyright laws on creative works in the first place.

My point was that associating fair use with this case at all would be pretty shaky for the plaintiff, if it is used at all. They've got to have something else they're going on, but I can't for the life of me figure out just what it is.

I've personally ripped every audio CD I've ever owned. The result of that was that I purchased an mp3 player to conveniently listen to it, which led me to eventually buy a couple of DRM'd tracks from the iTunes store (Audio books are much cheaper to buy digitally, and way more convenient). From a fiscal point of view, ripping CD's would, I would guess, be the start of almost everyones music library, and therefore ultimately expand the market. Even from a legal standpoint, I can't comprehend the problem they have with it.

That said, "Fair Use" is something of a misnomer. In other countries it is called "Fair Dealing" which is probably a better title. A lot of people seem to associate the Fair Use defense with a language definition of the words "fair use," which would seem to imply anything that is fair by common sense is legal...That, however, is not the case...

Even so, I think the RIAA is in the wrong on this and practically EVERY other stance they take.

[jivetrky @ Dec 30th 2007 2:48AM]

You've got to be kidding me? So your defense to MP3 ripping is that it's not actually the same song because I can't hear every cymbal vibration and mouse fart in the original recoding? That is worse reasoning that what the RIAA is doing.

That said, I am really sick of hearing all this RIAA stuff that is just utter bullshit. It is ridiculous bullshit if the RIAA expects me to buy a CD to listen to the song in my CD player, buy an MP3 copy to listen to the SAME song in my MP3 Player, buy a RINGTONE copy to listen to the SAME song on my phone when it rings.

It's all the SAME exact copy of the song and to which is only being listen by ME, the person that bought the rights to listen to it in the first place. All this digital mumbo jumbo is totally getting out of hand. Someday they'll probably have some sort of music device that charges you $0.50 every time you listen to a song. And if you are listening to it on a bus where the person sitting next to you may hear the music bleeding out of the headphones, well then you are getting charged a $1.50 for that one because now it's a public broadcast. And if I play it at home and my wife and 2 children are in the room and hear it, well then they will charge me $0.50 x 4 for that play.
It sounds ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was discussed in some similar fashion at a boardroom RIAA circle jerk. What a bunch of fucking morons.

I wish it were logistically possible to start some sort of uprising against them that could actually make an impact and take back our rights.

[Andrew @ Dec 30th 2007 2:57AM]

@jive

Your reasoning makes perfect sense if we are to apply common sense, but as I said in a reply to the first comment on the page, the RIAA are playing dinosaur and ignoring common sense in order to uphold the law to the letter, even though it defeats the purpose of the law.

See when you buy the CD you're realling buying the physical media and RENTING the music. As such, your rights are limited to whatever the owner of the track chooses to give you, and one of the rights *not* given is the right to reproduce the tracks for consumption, even without profit.

[Flashpoint @ Dec 29th 2007 6:59PM]

In the very beggining of the RIAA/music piracy bullshit, I'd heard many times that if you purchase a CD, you are allowed to upload it to your own MP3 player under "fair use policy".

You cannot theoretically call an MP3 a "copy" because an MP3 is a compressed codec version of another file which does not include every element the original had.

I don't think these lawyers know what the hell they are talkin about.

[Andrew @ Dec 30th 2007 2:28AM]

I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers know perfectly well that any sane and fair judge will laugh this out of Court (oh, God please) But let's be fair, the RIAA are insane, and their lawyers don't get paid without the days in court!

[Othello @ Dec 29th 2007 7:00PM]

This is great actually. Usually corporations made ludicrous claims but use them to extort people rather than taking it to court. Once it goes to court, they know they will probably lose, and then they can't make the claim any more. So, either the RIAA is really stupid or they are bribing people, because there is no way they will win.

[BigDaddyM @ Dec 29th 2007 7:18PM]

Exactly what I was going to post. Also, the defendent should also bring the software maker into play, which many use iTunes or WMP to rip. Make Apple or Microsoft explain what their software does. Was it XCopy (DVD ripping software) that went under because of this kind of presure? Sure a smaller software devloper has to fold, but I doubt that Apple or Microsoft would allow this nonsense.
M

[Ethyriel @ Dec 29th 2007 7:49PM]

A company that relies on RIAA members for their music store might think twice.