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!!!!!
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.