RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it

Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading. As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?

[Nointelhere @ Feb 19th 2008 10:28AM]

In Canada copying music including P2P is legal. Not video, just music. The recording industry in cooperation with the Canadian Government agency responsible "tax" blank recording media, and more recently the tools and appliances used to copy, transport and house music. The money collected is then distributed to the artists. I would like to emphasize "to the artists" This non adversarial approach along with our universal health care, is what makes Canada great.

[blah123 @ Dec 30th 2007 12:25PM]

This story is still not be reported correctly. The court briefing states that copying a CD to a computer in MP3 format and putting it in their shared KAZA folder is what made the copies illegal.

[pigfister @ Dec 30th 2007 2:24PM]

sony, disney and fox are the leading companies pushing propertarian, orwellian, anti consumer DRM lockouts and have the most lobbyists pushing congress to tighten the IP laws (DMCA), abolish fair use, criminalise ppl that use or even own software to circumnavigate any form of DRM and protect them from law suits when they run code on ppl's computers that cause damage and threaten your privacy by reporting information back to sony HQ about your computer usage (google: sony xcp).

sony, disney and fox are the MPAA they use piracy to scare monger ppl then make DRM secuROM, xcp and sell it to movie/game/cd makers and get paid from all sides and get fat while its the consumers that lose out as we are told we are pirates by sony for wanting to play our legally purchased cd's on our ipods because sony want 1 licence per device per user to quadruple their profits from each household, kinda like the military industrial complex.

sry to disappoint you but according to sony copying your cd's to your mp3 player is stealing!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
FTA: Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" October 02, 2007


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

[EDR229 @ Dec 30th 2007 2:34PM]

Right, the brief does say that placing the MP3s in a directory known to be shared with the general public is de facto copyright violation, but:

The brief also has language that states a compressed digital MP3 copy of the song (which was provided uncompressed on an audio CD) is an unauthorized copy. The distinction is critical, because if the judge confirms in his summary motion, then this *could* become case law that is referenced elsewhere.

So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be.

Of course, I'm just speculating, but the industry's lawyers may be gearing up to say, in effect, the following:

You can buy an audio CD and copy it as a backup audio CD (for example, to play in your car because you know that your car CD player "eats" discs), but you may not convert it into an MP3 because that transcoding into a new media format is not authorized by the copyright holder. If you want it in MP3 (or other audio format), you must buy it that way through their authorized distribution network (iTunes, etc.).

This is dangerous... very dangerous...

Any IP attorneys want to chime in?

[Jeff @ Dec 31st 2007 12:46AM]

EDR229: "So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be."

The courts have pretty regularly frowned upon the "but the bits are different!" defense in other cases, so that wouldn't be very consistent. They don't like dealing in technicalities when it comes to copyright. They've made it clear that the content is what counts, not the underlying data. The underlying data is just semantics.

There *is* existing case law that says that copying from CD to tape for personal use is legal. That's been tested; in fact, the RIAA has to *admit* it was legal, that was part of the agreement. I don't really see how ripping to mp3 is any different in the eyes of the court; certainly copying a CD to analog tape is not preserving the "bit structure" of the CD.

[Nilay Patel @ Dec 31st 2007 3:53PM]

That's the essential allegation in every single p2p case -- I represent RIAA defendants. What's new here is the RIAA's claim that ripping a CD constitutes making an "unauthorized copy." Even still, it's not suing him for that, just for sharing.

[mike @ Dec 30th 2007 12:28PM]

The RIAA know what they are doing. If they wanna file a lawsuit, they know they are gonna win it, otherwise they would save their time and do something else.. The compyright laws are all clear and stated all over the music stores.. People can't win in court using the negligence argument anymore.. and people should not blame the RIAA really, they should blame the lawyers employed by RIAA. They pick the "victems" the RIAA just gives them the approval. What should be argued here is that the punishment surpasses the "crime" by lets say "alot". charging 750 dollars for one illegally obtained song is itself a crime.

[Citrico @ Dec 30th 2007 12:48PM]

They don't care about winning the lawsuit, they care about ruining the people who they are suing, in order to teach 'em a lesson. No matter WHO wins, the victim is going to be out lots of money, and the RIAA is rich enough that they won't. It's just bullying really.

[John B @ Dec 30th 2007 12:54PM]

"the punishment surpasses the 'crime' by lets say 'alot'."

Alot is a town in India. There is not other use for a word called "alot". So, the punishment surpasses the crime by, let's say, a small town in India?? I'm confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alot

[mike @ Dec 30th 2007 1:00PM]

@ John B:
You could have made your comment much shorter, saved yourself sometime and impressment if you just noted the typo... Usually when idiots try to be smart, and boring people try to be funny disasters can happen. Thank God nothing major happened when you replied to my comment.

[Charles @ Dec 30th 2007 1:05PM]

Citrico, imagine you worked hard for years to produce some software which you were hoping to sell to make a living off. Now imagine everyone pirated your software instead of paying for it and after devoting a lot of time and effort to the project you ended up bankrupt. Would you think that was fair? Wouldn't you want to sue the people who stole your software so you could get some remuneration for your hard work? Clearly you would, so why are you so aggrieved with the RIAA do the same thing?

You say “the victim is going to be out lots of money, and the RIAA is rich enough that they won't”. If someone stole your work you'd no doubt be furious but when it's the RIAA it's okay because they're rich? Does that mean you believe rich people or organisations shouldn't be entitled to justice, and the poor deserve to be protected by the law? Your moral standards seem rather inconsistent.

[dan @ Dec 30th 2007 1:38PM]

Charles,

You argue that if you "worked hard for years to produce some software" you would be pissed if someone distributed it without paying you. Then you make a logical jump from that to saying that the RIAA is justified in being pissed about mp3 downloading.

Exactly what did the RIAA "work hard for years to produce" ? I have never heard of the RIAA producing anything except lawsuits.

[Charles @ Dec 30th 2007 2:52PM]

Dan, the RIAA represents the artist who produced the music. Do you think that because there are organisations in the distribution chain between the artist and the customer (i.e. publishers and the RIAA) that you're not still stealing from the artists who produced the music?

To go back to the analogy of you developing your own software for sale, it's like getting a publisher to handle distribution and marketing for you. Just because there's now an organisation in between you and the customer doesn't mean that you wouldn't still be left penniless if everyone pirated your software.

From what I see this whole “fuck the RIAA” attitude stems from the fact that people are pirating music and are pissed off that an organisation is out to catch them. They try and justify their theft by saying they're stealing from the mega-rich RIAA but they're still stealing indirectly from the artists. It might be your opinion that music is over priced, and while that may be true it doesn't give your the justification to steal.

I really don't understand the hatred towards the RIAA. Granted they say some really stupid stuff but they only ever go after people who are illegally stealing music and I can't see how anyone can have any sympathy for thieves.

[metal @ Dec 30th 2007 3:52PM]

I'd have to argue when you say that the RIAA "represents the artists"


http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/trent-reznor-te.html

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/trent-reznor-es.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/11/MN12066.DTL

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm

http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/industrypractices.php

this right here is a choice quote.

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

If the RIAA really represented the artists, do you think that they would make so little off each record? It seems to me that the RIAA does not in fact represent the artists, but bullies them, tells them what to do and how to act, and reaps the lions share of sales.

After reading all those links, I defy you to tell me that the RIAA "represents" the artists.

and no, not everyone thats interested in this story is a music theif. What happens is that when the RIAA says that ripping cds is illegal, it basically means even if you have legally purchased your music, the RIAA may see it fit in the future to sue you if you have ripped any cd. This amounts to telling people that unless they purchase their materials twice, that they're theives. So even if you buy cds from them, they still consider you a criminal?

[Citrico @ Dec 30th 2007 4:25PM]

How does suing little old ladies who don't own computers protect anyone? How do superfluous lawsuits help the artists in any way? Do the artists even see one cent of the money the RIAA gets from these bullying tactics? If I rip a CD I buy onto my computer into a folder which isn't shared with anyone (and that is what I do), why would the artist object in any way?

The RIAA is interested in protecting the RIAA, artists be damned.

[Logboy @ Dec 30th 2007 4:43PM]

Citrico, you're wrong. Each defendant is carefully picked based on their financial situation, with most or all not able to afford an attorney.

It's a good strategy if you: Want to intimidate the defendant into settling, or create your own case law for future use by adding language, knowing that it will either be overlooked by an incompetent attorney (a defendant representing themselves) or ignored because of a summary judgment.

[Kirk @ Dec 30th 2007 7:44PM]

The RIAA does NOT represent artists. The RIAA represents the recording industry -- specifically the major record labels. That hardly qualifies as representing artists.

The RIAA's sole purpose is to lobby on behalf of major corporations. The same corporations that have systematically ripped off artists since the beginning of recorded music.

[tcc3 @ Dec 31st 2007 9:27AM]

Both alot and a lot are proper use. Alot is a less common and older usage but not incorrect.

You internet pedants crack me up.

[John B @ Jan 2nd 2008 9:52AM]

@mike:

I don't care whether I impressed anyone or not, nor do I care if my message got a "Low Ranked" or not.

The introduction of "alot" as a replacement for "a lot" is wrong (don't give me any "language is always evolving" crap) and is way, way too common. I would expect it on Digg, but it's even creeping its way into Slashdot and the regular Engadget.

So, quite frankly, its misuse is so common anymore that there is no longer any way to tell whether it's a typo or an intentional misuse.

[John B @ Jan 2nd 2008 10:05AM]

@tcc3:

Name a few reputable dictionaries that acknowledge that, please. And, no, Urban Dictionary is not one of them.

[rs @ Dec 30th 2007 12:28PM]

Doesn't mean the RIAA doesn't still suck. I say nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure that the lecherous bastards don't continue this "business model".

[pigfister @ Dec 30th 2007 2:30PM]

if we all stop saying riaa and call them who they actually are, maybe ppl's opinions about the a$$hole companies will be a deciding factor in their purchases!

The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

[gigi @ Dec 30th 2007 12:32PM]

heheh.. was thinking that same thing! :-) Good one :-)

[Christopher Price @ Dec 30th 2007 12:48PM]

I'm surprised Engadget got caught in this much-ado-about-nothing-story... DailyTech made the exact same mistake weeks ago.

[Flashpoint @ Dec 30th 2007 12:36PM]

The law doesn't really understand digital copying technology, digital audio players or anything else for that matter.
All these laws are there simply to put more money in the pockets of "some people" and to create jobs (how many people do you think the RIAA employs?)

To hell with that... I got a special laptop with wifi and I not only download from Limewire and any other file-sharing system I can... but I DO IT by WIJACKING !

[Adam @ Dec 30th 2007 12:52PM]

The RIAA are like big oil and big pharma, they'll screw anyone and anything just to make an extra buck. Alas, the government is more than happy to comply with their demands.

[Marvin Quach @ Dec 30th 2007 1:03PM]

Just want to let the RIAA know that ever since these lawsuits started, I haven't bought a CD since! (Well, the exception is Dave Matthews Band, but that's 'cause they're not greedy bastards like some corporations that I know!)

[Steve @ Dec 30th 2007 1:42PM]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Marvin.

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ArtistSearch&keyword=Dave+Matthews+Band

While Dave Matthews might seem like a swell guy, his record label is very much part of the RIAA. Your money is going straight into the pockets of those greedy corporations -- and Dave gets his nickel for each album sold.

[Marvin Quach @ Dec 30th 2007 1:56PM]

woah... thanks for the heads up!
I'll just stop buying CDs all together, lol.

[tamosius @ Dec 30th 2007 2:35PM]

what I do not understand is - why is there still very few groups that have on-line stores, where people could buy MP3/CD/DVD and bypass thouse RIAA wankers? do contracts with studios put handcoffs on their hands?
Sometime I would like to buy directly from a group, so that I could express my appretiation for their good job... going, and buying their album from a store.. well... then instead of 10$ I'd be willing to pay, group would get 1$ (less? moree?) - and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

[abadtooth @ Dec 30th 2007 1:34PM]

I don't understand why the RIAA doesn't just make it illegal to even listen to music??!
It seems thats the directions there headed in...

[AndrewN @ Dec 30th 2007 2:01PM]

Because that wouldn't make them any money.

[max @ Dec 30th 2007 2:05PM]

sure it would! think of all the money they could make from the lawsuits!

[metal @ Dec 31st 2007 5:15AM]

@ glomph

you're analogy doesnt hold too well. You're telling me that if someone painted a picture, they'd give it to you for free?

If people made music for free how would you get it? The artist would pay the cost to host a server so you could get free music? I highly doubt that. Most musicians are rich because they made music. They dont make music because they are rich.

I know some people who do the garage band thing but they dont get together and write songs everyday. They get together on occassion to jam recreationally about once a month. You'd be lucky to get three good songs a year out of them.

And well, buying music doesnt mean supporting the RIAA. What if I buy indy or non RIAA member cds?

@ larry

I'm not going to subsidize your illegal activity. Just because you can get away with something doesnt make it moral.

@ seoultrain.

my music drawer has $600 worth of cds. if you cant afford it then ask your friends to buy it for you for xmas etc. Just cause your ipod can hold 160 gigs worth of music doesnt mean you're required to use 160 gigs. realistically my favorite songs occupy 2 gigs tops. I cant imagine someone saying that they regularly listen to or even enjoy more than 30% of the songs on their ipod. Most ipod owners do the whole pod surfing thing. you know, pressing next 12 times and listening to one song, then pressing next 12 more times to get to another song they like.

[abadtooth @ Dec 31st 2007 2:57PM]

I don't understand where you got all of those assumptions from, I don't steal music and I think that it is wrong yes, but I really can't see why music can't be a little more simple.. you buy a cd and you can do what ever you would like with it except upload it to public channels (aka limewire)

In fact if I remember correctly album prices were going to be slashed in two when all music was being sold on CD's because of the cost to produce a CD vs a cassette tape, did that ever happen??

If they would use logic rather than being like the IRS they would actually get somewhere.
Say an album was only $6 I think anyone might reconsider pirating when they could get all of those tracks along with a shinny new CD.

[larry @ Dec 30th 2007 1:58PM]

honestly... who buys music anymore?

[Dylan @ Dec 30th 2007 2:14PM]

I think downloading music illegally IS the classic form of stealing. Yeah the record labels and RIAA are douschebags and are making WAY too much money for what they are doing, but I think it means more to an artist than just a nickel (or dollar or whatever it is that is their cut) when you buy their cd, it shows support, and it shows that you want them to progress. Granted, I think the best way to give an artist their well deserved money is to see them in concert and/or buy their merchandise.

The people that download all this music illegally are just being immature and naive. If they (you Larry) can't see that what they are doing is stealing, them society (and your parents) have probably not done too good of a job teaching you morals.

Sorry if there were any spelling or grammatical errors.

[larry @ Dec 30th 2007 2:21PM]

You sir, are an idiot.

[metal @ Dec 30th 2007 4:19PM]

hes an idiot for wanting to support people for the work they do?

if everyone stole music there'd be no music. The artists would stop making music because they needed to make ends meet and we'd be in a musicless world because everyone wanted to be a cheapass.

[Derek @ Dec 30th 2007 5:59PM]

If you want to support a band, buy their merchandise or go to their concert. Buying their CD might make them, what, a quarter?

[glomph @ Dec 31st 2007 11:54AM]

@metal
"if everyone stole music there'd be no music."

I object.

I know plenty of people that make music with no intention of getting paid for records, of course there would still be music, just no commercialized music. I mean people paint pictures with no intention of selling them, the same applies.

The point is, most of the money made if I buy music doesn't go to the artist it goes to a bureaucratic system that sues people.

[dave @ Dec 30th 2007 8:59PM]

I live in the uk and i download everything and consider myself very lucky to be out of range of these money grubbing bastards. but after i download a movie or a tv show or an album that i enjoy, i buy it. i buy it because i love supporting artists that produce quality art and i love having a little piece of plastic that makes me not a criminal. but if i hear a bit of an album and download it and hate it then i just delete it because it isnt worth my appreciation or time. when i first got my ipod mini loads of years ago i went round my friends and just dumped his whole music collection onto it. then i started buying out all the parts i liked and deleting the rest until, as of last week i have 1000 songs that i legally own and enjoy listening to on cd, ripped into mp3 and synced with my ipod. If anyone ever told me my way of enjoying music was wrong id laugh at them. try before you buy is a popular concept worldwide so why should this not apply to music? i have been doing this ever since i started liking music (im 16 right now), it must have been 6 years, and if you say im wrong then you say that giving money to shitheads that make crappy products is right. not that im accusing anyone of this, least of all the person im replying to.

on an unrelated subject if i want a movie i download it and if i like it i buy it but i tend not to do anything with the purchased copy because the digital copy, in the case of something like an aXXo rip, is generally much more convinient then the dvd which gets ruined quickly if i dont hide it somewhere. stupid optical media.

anyone have a similar moral standing on this to me?

[roole @ Dec 30th 2007 8:24PM]

Glomph says: "The point is, most of the money made if I buy music doesn't go to the artist it goes to a bureaucratic system that sues people."

Therefore, it's OK to steal?

And: Do you, sir, swear that you will never, ever illegally download a copy of artist-produced-and-sold music? Also, that you have never done so?


Yikes..... the sheer naivete of your post is mind-boggling.

[larry @ Dec 30th 2007 9:18PM]

Tell you what, if you want to support the record labels so bad, ill give you a list of every CD on my computer downloaded illegally and you can go buy a retail copy of it.

[seoultrain @ Dec 31st 2007 12:51AM]

Those of you on your moral high horses should open up your minds a little. The simple truth is that (legal) music is ridiculously expensive. As a worst case scenario, the 160GB iPod can hold 40,000 songs (and is advertized as such). At 99 cents each on iTunes, that's $39,600. Anyone here have enough cash to fill that iPod? How bout half? How about 1 percent for $400? It's just ridiculous. Please don't nitpick about file sizes and song costs. That was the worst case, and the best case isn't much better.

The simple truth is that almost everyone loves music, but not everyone can afford it. I'm not defending stealing, as the same argument can be made for robbery. But illegal downloading is relatively harmless, and opens music up to people that wouldn't listen to otherwise.

As a student, I bought less than 10 CD's, partly because of expense, partly because of the ease of downloading. Now that I'm earning an income, I'd have no problem dropping $10-$15 on a CD I know I'll enjoy. Now, if I wasn't able to download music in the past, I would have stuck to the crappy radio, and never would have found half (hell, more like 90%) of the music I like now. I love it when artists care about more people enjoying their music instead of more people buying it.

lastly, can someone please tell me why you people are buying crappy 128kbps mp3's for almost the same price as a full-quality CD? At least go over to Amazon, with no DRM and 256 kbps. Big companies make billions from clueless consumers.

[50leaves.com @ Dec 30th 2007 2:17PM]

I wrote something very similar to your first article based on the washington post. What proof of digging have you found, saying the RIAA didn't sue over copying of CDS?

[Phredd @ Dec 30th 2007 2:35PM]

I wrote back as well after reading part of the brief and an article written by someone who read the entire brief. This story still isn't accurate. RIAA is suing the Howells, because, even though they claim they never shared their MP3 files, they made their MP3 files available on a file sharing network. That's the part that's illegal, even though these files were digitized from their own CDs.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2851

It's absolutely unforgivable that the Washington Post has shown so little journalistic integrity to write such an article without even reading the complaint. It doesn't help that everyone else is blindly repeating this erroneous story creating even more hatred for the RIAA on false premises.

[mike @ Dec 30th 2007 2:39PM]

Its simple, sell your 40GB HD iPod, get a 512 mb shuffle.. that i'll make you get (buy) the music that u really want to listen to..
Piracy is encouraged by larger mp3 players hard drives, when u have an 80 GB hard drive, you wanna fill it with songs, and of course u can't do that legally because it'll cost you your house, your car and probably some part of your body.. so here are some suggestions for the RIAA:
The RIAA should enforce mp3 players internal hard drives to not exceed 512 mb with no exception... wait a minute, that'll piss off big corporations though like apple, sandisk.. u name it.. and when this corps get pissed off, they know how to slap the RIAA really good... So here is an idea, instead of making this fight between the consumers and the RIAA, it should be between corporations. That way the consumer wins.

[Jherez @ Dec 30th 2007 3:08PM]

Limit Players to no more than 512MB? Dude are you serious, what planet are you living on. 512Mb is only enough space for 120 4MB songs at 128Kbps...that is not enough for your average consumer. This random throw around of lawsuits is getting out of hand, why sue the average joe? Why not take on the P2P corps?*I'm not serious with the P2P thing*

[Ian @ Dec 30th 2007 2:53PM]

ahh while its not quite the same i thought this was pretty funny non the less.

http://www.foxtrot.com/