RIAA suing citizen for copying legally purchased CDs to PC
By Darren Murph 
posted Dec 29th 2007 6:50PM
posted Dec 29th 2007 6:50PM
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]
Unfortunately, there are a great deal of beliefs about copyright, the RIAA, and umbrellas of protection using "Fair Use" and "AHRA".
1)Should anyone really be concerned about the RIAA, or any other party for that matter, suing them for ripping files form legally purchased CDs to their home computer? NO.
2)Does "Fair Use" clause work in this situation? Not really.
3)What about the "AHRA" - "Audio Home Recording Act"? Doesn't that protect me? Not in the least.
Let me answer these in reverse order.
The "AHRA" only pertains to audio home recorders, i.e. Minidisc, DATs, DCCs, etc. A computer is NOT, in application, principle, or in a court room, an audio home recording device. An audio home recording device is recognized legally as a device with one function only, playing and recording audio. A computer was originally constructed for mathematics, but has grown to encompass so many other tasks; from drawing, to typing letters, to watching movies, to online dating, etc. Therefore, the "AHRA" will not protect computer users in this situation.
"Fair Use" is not an adequate defense. In order for it to be an adequate defense, you should pass 3 of the 4 factors. You are lucky to pass 2 in this situation, and unless you have a lenient judge because it's Christmas, you aren't going to pass.
But to answer why you shouldn't be worried about being sued by the RIAA for ripping legally purchased CDs to your own computer (provided you have only kept them on your computer, or transfered them to your own ipod, or other portable device) is the "Betamax" case. Without going into all the details, let's just say that Sony and Universal ended up in Supreme Court 24 years ago, and the court's decision gives us the right under a newly coined term, "time shifting".
For any other information, contact your local Intellectual Property lawyer, or you can contact me, and I'll send you my going rate.
FOR DECADES PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MAKING THIER OWN PERSONAL COPIES OF MUSIC. DID WE FORET ABOUT CASSETE TAPES, DAT TAPES ETC .... RIAA . WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD SUE THEM (RIAA) THE ALL THE TERRIBLE "ONE HIT WONDERS" WE WERE SUCKED INTO BUYING> YAH YOU KNOW YOU GOT SOME IN YOUR COLLECTION,,,, NEED I SAY MILLIE VANILLIE...... THE RIAA IS SCARRED SHITLESS THAT CONSUMERS CAN REVIEW THE CRAP THEY SELL BEFORE WE BUY!!!!!!
Screw the RIAA
I second that! The RIAA organization is pure evil!
Now we must wonder if the next WMP and iTunes version will still have ripping capabilities.
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.
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
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
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!!!!!
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.
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.
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?
@ snafle: Interesting point.. will see how it works here on Mexico... I don't know how it works on the US of A either
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.
Fuck the RIAA. this is stupid, when are they gonna get shot?
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"
I want to know how they found out he was ripping CDs on his computer?
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 !!!
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.
@ 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!!
I'm with DAZA. How the feck did they know they had copied the CD's?
@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
May I be the first to say: FUCK THE RIAA!
Preach to me brother!
Amen. Show your support from the roof tops.
If this case is won, it'll be time to thin their herd.
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.
CAAAAAN YOU DIG IT?????
I would have said that, but I thought Engadget has a language filtering system so I decided against it! :-P
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.
@Carl Vitullo:
(with iPod hooked up to stereo, making the clicker noise rhythmically)
"LAW-Y-ERS... come out to PLAAAAAAAY...."
;)
FAIL
I say they contact all the bands and see if they even give a flying fuck.
RIAA must have some good lobbyists and powerful politician friends.
No doubt about Mr.....
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.
So does that mean if you burn a CD from those compressed mp3s and give it to your friend, that that is legal?
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...
@andrew... tldr
@durr:
because it wasn't written in internet acronyms?
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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!
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.
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
A company that relies on RIAA members for their music store might think twice.
Fugging RIAA, only way the music studios make money now is by suing consumers!
"But Mr. FBI Man, I just wanted to listen my new CD on the computer. Windows Media Player automatically ripped it."
Can we petition the RIAA or something.
Oh yeah, they have strong lobbyists.
Fuck the RIAA
Screw you, RIAA
when was the last time i ripped a cd?
90's?
riaa is a turd.
download!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even if you download music some one has to rip it before they can give it to you
you know, its ironic they want money from digital players when they expect us to listen to their CDs on 10 yr old walkmans...
Ah well, I guess it's time to break out the chunky ol' discman then... Goodbye Zune!
"Goodbye Zune!"
Well, it's probably for the best
And what exactly is wrong with the Zune according to you?
Too busy ripping a couple new CD's to comment on this right now...
Wait, I thought we were entitled to backing up the CD's to our computers?
Or did I get that wrong. I have three CD's on my PC. I don't want to be sued just for having them on my PC. I much less want to pay AGAIN for songs I ALREADY bought.
Screw the RIAA.
might as well not pay for any cds
I guess you can "back up" the cd to the computer, but you can't "play" the mp3's. You can't burn a copy from the back up because that would be an unauthorized copy... so the purpose of the back up is.....?
I am Jeffrey Howell. Just a few weeks ago no one new who I was, but now my name is wide spread on the internet. I just want to clear up a few points that might be misunderstood. Yes, I am being sued for downloading or uploading the R.I.A.A. says it is the same. The facts are. Yes, I have MP3s on my computer. However these files were not placed in a “shared folder." The MP3s are in fact stored in the C:\My Music folder created by Windows, and have always been. The peer to peer program that was installed on my computer shared my entire hard drive. Of the thousands of files the R.I.A.A. found only a few are their concern. All this will not change the fact that the R.I.A.A. states that recording legally purchased music is illegal, and you could find your self in court.
“What the Law Says and What it Means
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.
That’s pretty important information to have, considering how serious it would be if you were caught and prosecuted by the authorities or sued in civil court. It’s even more important that you understand that when you illicitly make or distribute recordings, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission.
You may find this surprising. After all, when”
“Copying CDs
· It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
· It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
· Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
à The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
à The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.”
Coppied from the R.I.A.A. website.
RIAA: The Recording Industry Anti-Christ of America.
They will loose this law suit, and will never be able to use this arguement again.
Luke..you are wrong...and not just one the FIRST GRADE spellinG word like LOSE. (But thanks for proving my point of the intelligence level of this site.)
This screams of SCO...I think they were just delisted from NASDAQ
What I want to know is how the RIAA knew this dude had the ripped tracks on his computer. Usually they claim that the files in question are in a shared kazaa folder or something. I wonder if he ripped them and then shared them via p2p, or they were really snooping on his computer.
yes this is exactly what i was wondering too. i didn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned if he was actually sharing these ripped songs on a p2p network. does anyone else know????? if he NEVER shared these once they were on his computer that is pretty disturbing that the RIAA can find out that you ripped songs onto your computer.....
Where the hell was the RIAA when I was recording AC/DC off of the airwaves of KOME in the San Francisco Bay Area with my Realistic Cassette Recorder in the 7th grade? These idiots are pulling at strings. I'm all for the bands and performers getting a fair chunk of coin for what they do but the RIAA can shave my nads and choke on the pubes.
The funny part is that the artists really don't make anything from album sales, the labels do. The artists have to go on tour and sell merchandise in order to make anything.
I'm so tired of people pulling this card! Bands do make some money from album sales, and $1 per album is always better than $0. Support your favorite artists buy both buying their albums and going to their shows.
That being said, this is completely stupid; I should be able to rip my own CDs to my computer without worrying about it.
This article is totally misleading. The RIAA is claiming that the act of having MP3's in a "shared" folder constitutes copyright infringement. The Jeffrey Howell is countering that the RIAA must prove that the files were actually copied, not just that they *could have been* copied.
Unfortunately, because this is a civil case they are probably both correct; all the RIAA has to do is prove that having files in the shared folder is preponderance of proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt to win it's case. This kind of vaguety would never fly in a criminal case though.
Artists don't make the chunk of their income from CD sales, that comes from touring. However, every artist that isn't already making millions can easily end up in the hole if their record doesn't sell.
I'm assuming most people know this, but nearly every record you listen to wouldn't have been able to be produced, recorded, mixed, mastered, and manufactured without the help of a label. They provide fronts to bands and artists for those costs, and the band/artist is expected to pay them back, and then anything that is made beyond those costs is a profit. So by downloading/stealing music, a lot of time you really are hurting the artist.
Having said that, I'm no fan of the RIAA. I want to see the bands I love getting paid for the music I enjoy. Not the labels making any more than they make. Support your bands...buy their CDs, go to their concerts, and buy their merchandise (at the shows).
Fuck you RIAA and your little PAC backed political cronies too.
If the RIAA wins this case:
-I will personally never buy any music again.
-I will make sure everyone who knows me will never give me bought music as a present
-I will give Jeff Howell a frickin' medal
Oh wait, I do/will be doing all this anyway.
Sweet, so thanks to people like you, people who actually like to have good quality CDs in our hands won't be able to get discs anymore. Thanks so much!
Plus, whats the point of having CD ripping software or an MP3 player when the RIAA might say all tracks have to be bought from Napster or iTunes and the tracks on your
MP3 player were from CDs you bought.
So what exactly does the RIAA have to do until the idiots in the mainstream media like CNN pay attention to this?
Stop paying the news companies NOT to cover these stories.
I'm actually serious - did anybody see huge coverage of the recent case in which the RIAA obtained a favorable jury ruling / award of over 200k for 24 songs on one (soon to be, if she isn't already) poor lady's computer? It was all over Slashdot, Digg, etc. but I never saw it on any mainstream news outlets. Why do you suppose that was? And that is just one example - stories of the xxAA's abuse of our court system abound, never make it into the mainstream news.
I am becoming incredibly cynical about this kind of thing, and would not at all be surprised if there was money being exchanged behind the scenes. If you seriously think otherwise, check your gullibility meter (and, PS - I have some real estate in S. Florida you might be interested in).
Josh--
Stop paying the major news networks? How 'bout stop being the exact same company as the major news networks? Let us review:
--Universal Music Group, part of NBC Universal, running NBC and MSNBC
--Warner Music Group, part of Time Warner, parent company of CNN and TIME magazine
--Sony BMG doesn't have significant broadcast holdings in the US
--Disney...well, Disney owns everything, of course ABC being one of them, and Radio Disney being a significant music demographic--the tweens--for which they shall not piss off labels nor will labels piss of them
Of course, let's not forget that Viacom owns MTV and BET, which are essentially musical culture networks. (Say what you will about MTV being a "reality" outlet, the presence of MTV2, MTV hits and God knows what other networks have spawned, they are a recording industry whore.)
Lollers. No way this will stand up in court. Either the RIAA is REAAALLLY reaching, or we aren't being told the whole story, which I'd bet my collection of ripped Zeppelin tunes on.
Unless any of said tracks were shared or sold, its PERFECTLY legal to rip the tunes to the hard drive for backup or convenient listening. Like Wayne said, windows media even does it on the automatic! I highly doubt Microsoft would build in an automatic illegal function into their software, hmmmmmm? (even though it rips them as WMA by default and not MP3, its still tunes being ripped)
FTRIAA
of course microsoft assumed that all CDs weren't copyrighted...
come on now!
haha... microsoft lawyers... haha
and FUCK YOU RIAA!
The WaPo article linked is horribly misleading. The Howells were not sued because they ripped music for their own use, but rather because they ripped music for their own use... and then stored it in the "shared files" folder on KaZZaa.
If they had just ripped it and never shared it, the RIAA would have no way of knowing they ripped it in the first place.
Here's the legal brief, which talks on page two about how 54 of the songs in the user's Kazzaa shared folder were from his own collection:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_070820OrderGrantSumJudg
Windows has performed an illegal operation.
CLOSE
I am Jeffrey Howell. Just a few weeks ago no one new who I was, but now my name is wide spread on the internet. I just want to clear up a few points that might be misunderstood. Yes, I am being sued for downloading or uploading the R.I.A.A. says it is the same. The facts are. Yes, I have MP3s on my computer. However these files were not placed in a “shared folder." The MP3s are in fact stored in the C:\My Music folder created by Windows, and have always been. The peer to peer program that was installed on my computer shared my entire hard drive. Of the thousands of files the R.I.A.A. found only a few are their concern. All this will not change the fact that the R.I.A.A. states that recording legally purchased music is illegal, and you could find your self in court.
“What the Law Says and What it Means
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.
That’s pretty important information to have, considering how serious it would be if you were caught and prosecuted by the authorities or sued in civil court. It’s even more important that you understand that when you illicitly make or distribute recordings, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission.
You may find this surprising. After all, when”
“Copying CDs
· It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
· It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
· Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
à The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
à The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.”
Coppied from the R.I.A.A. website.
Um, FUCK the Riaa? how the fuck did they know that he ripped Cd's to his computer? this is getting out of hand. Surely they dont expect us to buy a cd then buy a digital version do they? were not made of money you butfucker. gah!
LOL butfucker
my bad, i meant ButtFuckers lol
That's what the movie industry expects.
It seems like the penalties for downloading a song are much higher than say walking into the store and stealing the CD. Fines should be minimal because a song is not worth that much if you think about it. They are selling them for a dollar or two on websites. It says on the RIAA website that the minimum penalty for 1 song is $750!! This is nothing but bullshit.
Yikes! I must be in debt of at least a half million dollars. xD
Heh. You're right :)
We should all just calmly walk into a store and steal EVERY CD in the place. The may catch a few of us, but in the long run it will expose us to less liability.
ROFL.
Oh wait... If I rip a MP3 from that stolen CD and give that to you, won't you be in trouble for possessing stolen property?
My head hurts.....
Ok, calm down, I know exactly what we need to do.
1. Grab a pen and a paper.
2. Scrawl a handwritten letter to the RIAA asking permission for every song you have ever ripped to your computer or ever plan to rip to your computer.
3. Send said hundreds (thousands?) of letters to the RIAA and convince your friends to do the same.
4. The RIAA stops being a turd after drowning in mail.
Problem solved.
One letter per song, right? :D
Sounds like a good plan to me.
anyone know how to pirate stamps?