RIAA sues for copying legally-purchased CD to hard drive

[DisgustipatedinCA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.
...
Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
(more at link)
---
It wasn't until I read this article that I became aware I must be one of the most heinous criminals still loose on the streets, still ripping CD's with impunity.

[babylonsister]

1. Holy crap. That's going way too far; how do they intend to police us all? nt

[LiberalFighter]

2. Gee back in the 70's I recorded 45's and LP's on my cassette tapes

so I could listen to them at work.

[dysfunctional press]

5. you'd just better hope that the statute of limitations has run out...

you felonious bastard.











:sarcasm:

[RC]

28. Like murder, there is no statute of limitations as far as the

RIAA is concerned. We all need to ourselves in to save them the trouble of coming after us. How many of us have deleted the music Micro$oft has installed on our hard drives?

[Bright Eyes]

3. Greed.

I hope the RIAA gets counter sued for extortion.

[ixion]

4. what a bunch of crap... so people who got ipods can't move their legally purchased music

to their ipod?

That is patently ludicrous.

[Patsy Stone]

6. The RIAA should sue Microsoft.

If it's illegal, why would "Rip" be one of the choices in Media Player?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. And Apple for that matter

iTunes allows you to rip CD's to mp3 or AAC format.

[Patsy Stone]

13. This whole thing

reeks of someone trying to make a name for themselves in the legal community. For a law to exist, doesn't it have to be enforceable?

[Deja Q]

43. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner!

Even Vista's media player has the function to rip. And has for years.

And everybody pisses on Vista claiming it straaaaaaaaaaaaangles people with DRM...

[Captain Hilts]

8. I don't want to carry the EXPENSIVE originals to the gym... nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. You can protect the expensive originals at the gym

I'm envisioning a lockable 24-CD changer strapped to your back with headphones so you can listen while you work out, and your CD's are safe. And with the 24-disc changer, you'll be able to store almost as much music as the original iPod Shuffle would carry in a gum pack-sized container.

[Berry Cool]

9. Their business model no longer works in the modern world,

so they are pursuing their law-abiding customers to punish them for it.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :sarcasm:

[Didereaux]

10. Fearless Prediction: RIAA will lose this one, without sharing there is no foul

[flashl]

16. This is dangerous. IMO, it builds on this case

Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, where a jury delivered 24 guilty counts of infringement. The jurors to found her liable, the record labels did not have to prove that songs on her computer had actually been transmitted to others online.

Because Thomas' infringement was determined willful, the jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, for a total of $222,000 in damages.

[Didereaux]

18. if memory serves though she was connected onto a peer2peer, that is how they located her

[flashl]

22. IIRC, she used a kazaa account on a couple of websites whose

libraries didn't 'match' the hard drive's music. They claimed she had the 'potential' to share.

[enlightenment]

11. If there argument has merit, then they're going to have to sue

millions of people from decades ago. Anyone who has ever made a copy of a recording is, based on their argument, guilty of copyright infringement. They can sue my 85 year-old father, for recording his Perry Como and Frank Sinatra LP's to reel-to-reel tape . . . he even let other people listen to them at parties!

The HORROR!!

[msedano]

14. I borrow music from the public library...

doesn't the Patriot Act give the RIAA free access to my record records? Luckily, I do not dump the CDs to my computer, and I keep only text files on my iPod. Should I abandon my thoughts of obtaining a USB turntable to convert my old vinyls into digital content?

[Feron]

25. No. Go ahead and convert your vinyl.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Betamax case protects fair use and converting your purchased media should fall under that as long as the files aren't shared.

IIRC Howell, the defendant in this case, wanted to share his files over his personal computer network and used Kazaa as the method. The WP story is a bit misleading because there was a supporting brief saying that copying a CD is theft, but Howell wasn't sued for that.

Anyhow it's no secret that the RIAA wants to move to a pay per play or rent model as opposed to purchasing a CD that could last a lifetime.

[NashVegas]

31. Which Is About As Stupid As It Gets (the "rent" model)

What the suits can't seem to wrap their heads around is that no matter what they come up with, some 16 year old is going to find their way to code around it.

[msedano]

48. RIAA arranged an add-on charge for blank media

didn't they? So when you buy a cassette tape, some portion goes to RIAA as the tax owed to RIAA just in case you make a copy of registered media. Pretty soon we'll pay a dollar extra for a ream of blank paper in case we want to print something copyrighted.

thanx for the go-ahead. I was gonna cut the wires.

[Didereaux]

15. it is not illegal to TIVO an HBO therefor it is not illegal to digitize an audio CD

This will be lost or thrown out, or the judge will get his ass chewed on appeal. RIAA has won cases ONLY when it involved 'sharing' the files with others.(even that has been without majority court support)

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. Better watch it- you just confessed to illegal activity online

with that little blurb you added at the bottom. If they see that post they WILL come for you.

[Deja Q]

41. How come all the pot smokers around here aren't arrested?

Well, at least those who like to admit they do?

[htuttle]

19. Don't people pay royalties on blank CDs and CD burners under the AHRA of 1992?

:wtf:

[catmandu57]

20. Just who is the riaa?

The trail has to lead back to one or a handfull of people, whoever it is they are ratshit crazy insane and need medicated.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. It's a lobbying group for record companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels
Big Four" RIAA members

* EMI
* Sony BMG Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa
Company structure

The RIAA is led by Mitch Bainwol, who has been Chairman and CEO since 2003. He is assisted by Cary Sherman, the President of the Board of Directors. There are 27 members of the board, who are drawn from a number of record companies.<2>

The RIAA represents a large number of members (see List of RIAA member labels), who are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US.

[NC_Nurse]

23. RIAA jumps the shark. What a surprise.

Idiots.

[Redstone]

24. As a writer and former songwriter, I'm REALLY strong on copyright protection.

But this is just fucking stupid. I hope the judge / jury slaps the shit out of the RIAA.

If this guy bought a CD with one of my songs on it, I'd get paid my nickel in royalties. Should I get another nickel just because he wants to listen to that song on his computer, rather than on a CD player?

Absolutely not.

He's paid to listen to the song. The source from which he wants to listen to it is his business, and not anyone else's.

Redstone

[libnnc]

32. I'm glad to see you say this Redstone

I have a brazillion CDs (purchased with my employee discount from Sam Goody years ago) and recently I've been downloading them on my laptop via iTunes. Eventually I'm going to get an iPod so I can finally have the music I want in the palm of my hand without wading trough mountains of jewel cases and crap.

Why does the RIAA not understand that in the wake of iTunes (I drop at least $20 a month buying music and audio books from them) CDs are cumbersome, outdated technology? It's crazy!

[Redstone]

39. Hey, why should I expect someone to pay for something twice? And, as far as I'm concerned,

if someone wants to make a "songs I think you'd like" tape or CD for one of their friends, no harm there either.

It's the online "sharing" stuff (the old Napster, Limewire, etc) that is theft, pure and simple.

Redstone

[Deja Q]

44. I agree with you. 100%.

He paid the license.

As long as he doesn't take his songs and give them to all sorts of strangers over the internet or other mediums, he has the right to make a copy for personal use. With so many items no longer in print, to lose the copy first purchased would be very tragic.

Pirates can go to hell. That includes the pirates in countries the big name companies give sweet deals to. (Software and DVD companies are giving nice rates to China as means to "curb piracy". I wouldn't be surprised if members of the RIAA engage in the same double standard too...)

[Redstone]

49. This time, we are in absolute agreement.

Redstone

[killbotfactory]

26. Avoid RIAA "protected" cd's with this site

http://riaaradar.com/

they are going WAY too far.

[HughMoran]

27. I despise the RIAA

Due to their gestapo tactics, I haven't bought CD's (except a few to support liberal singers criticizing Bushco) for 5 years running. The artists who defy the RIAA also get my support.

[Occulus]

36. I haven't bought a CD in over ten years

I saw this coming a loooooong time ago, back when .mp3 first appeared.

That, and the crap RIAA artists put out just isn't worth the money, IMO.

[libnnc]

29. good grief how many times should I have to pay for shit?

Once, twice, forty-eleven? How much of my money to these creeps want?


Fucking ridiculous.

[Greyhound]

30. This whole bullshit issue is the direct result of the republiks packing the courts with their

corporate cronies. This same case was slapped down in the 70s over the cassette recorder and again in the 80s over the VCR.

It is time For Americans to stand up and take their power back, if we don't we will become nothing more than indentured servants.

[TransitJohn]

33. Isn't it specifically legal to make copies

of legally purchased recordings??? I'm thinking vinyl to cassette tape here, but it's still the same damn thing.

[Crabby Appleton]

34. Attached is a link to a legal brief in the case that describes the actions

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

hope the link works. I personally couldn't care less about the record companies (artists yes, companies no-fuck'em). It does seem from the filing that the defendant was using kazaa; the copying issues is not the meat of the case. The defendant Howell is going to lose this case based on the other evidence.

[onenote]

45. I think you are right -- its a distribution case, not a copying case

[Crabby Appleton]

51. The guy got caught distributing songs via kazaa, the WaPo

article is very misleading.

[Occulus]

35. ATTENTION DU COPYRIGHT APOLOGISTS!

WE TOLD YOU SO!

[flashl]

37. Interesting post

Obviously you don't pay for the physical medium; That piece of plastic isn't worth 10-15 bucks. No, what you pay for is the music on it (as the RIAA must have argued previously).

Transferred ownership would imply that the music wouldn't belong to the record company anymore. That would be a very bad deal to the record company, so instead, what they sell you is a license to listen to that music. Once you buy a CD, you get to listen to a piece of music as many times as you want.

But you cannot distribute copies of it- the music is protected by copyright law. Now, the record companies argue that making a copy for personal use implies you are not listening to the licensed material anymore- instead, you are listening to a copy (never mind that bits *must* be copied around before the audio hits the speaker).

A case can be made for the fact that an MP3 isn't the licensed material: you can do a bitwise comparison and find out that what you are listening to isn't what you licensed.

This is where the fun starts. Rights and obligations most always come in pairs. If you have the obligation to send your kids to school, this implies the right to have schools built to send your kid to (and building the schools is then in turn the obligation of the state).

So if I cannot make copies for personal use but paid for a license to listen to music represented by a certain pattern of bits, I will have an unalienable right to listen to that music, represented by that *exact* pattern of bits. This implies the obligation of the record company to indefinitely provide me with that exact pattern of bits forever and ever and ever (unless otherwise stated in a written license agreement).

This means that whenever I accidentally scratch the CD that I bought so that it isn't bit-for-bit readable anymore, I'm entitled to a replacement- this obligation arises on RIAA's side of the deal. I guess that is where my microwave oven and sledge hammer come into the picture, and that is where the fun *really* starts.

Source

[Kucinich4America]

38. This is exactly why we have to stop corporatism NOW

When I buy a CD, it is mine. If I want to make a copy for my car, a copy for my Ipod, a copy for a hard drive and a copy to wipe my ass with, it is NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS. I paid for it. It is my property, not that of MegaCorporateRecords, Inc.

FUCK the RIAA. They are fascists, and they can suck my ass. So can anyone who defends them.

[Deja Q]

40. If everybody stopped buying CDs and destroyed their existing ones,

and not buy new ones, the RIAA would be out of biz.

Unless they're conspiring something all big and sticky...

There is a right to fair use and backing up for PERSONAL use.

If the RIAA can prove beyond reasonable doubt people are sharing, more power to them.

BTW: Will the RIAA sue Bill Gates for allowing even Vista to rip CDs to the local computer's hard drive?

Uh-oh. The RIAA execs better get the CDs out of their butts... Never piss on Microsoft; if there's a constant in life, it's that!

[Rex]

42. Bunch of mafia wannabes.

Fuck that jazz. The RIAA sucks donkey balls!

[onenote]

46. RIAA has been very careful not to cross the line about personal use

I've had my share of legal fights with RIAA (I used to represent an online music company that, sad to say, is no longer around) and am very familiar with what they've said in congressional hearings and litigation regarding copying for personal use. Namely, they waffle. They hint that they think if its unauthorized its infringing, but also acknowledge that it could be fair use. In other words they try to have their cake and eat it too.

I was surprised, therefore, to see the article cited by the OP, which suggests that RIAA is now expressly going after someone for simply ripping copies. However, after reading the brief, that is not what they've said or done. RIAA is not claiming that the defendant violated the copyright owner's exclusive right to make (or authorize the making of) copies. Rather, they are suing for an infringement of the exclusive right to authorize the distribution of copies. In other words, its not simply the ripping that they are complaining about -- its the ripping and storing on a shared file available to a peer-to-peer service (Kazaa).

[Redstone]

50. Aha. I did not see the Kazaa connection in the original post. Thanks for the elucidation;

my position as an interested party (a songwriter) is stated above.

If as the OP seemed to indicate, the defendant just wanted to listen to those songs from his computer, rather than from the original CDs he bought, then the RIAA is wrong.

However, if he made those songs avaliable to others via an online "sharing" service, such as Kazaa, he's a thief.

Q.E.D.

Redstone

[Crabby Appleton]

52. The WaPo article is misleading, the guy got caught using kazaa

the defendant said he didn't realize that kazaa program was sharing the files with others, he was sued for the sharing, not the copying.

Here is the original judgment in the case:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_070820OrderGrantSumJudg

(cross posted in other related threads)

[Occulus]

53. edited

nevermind

[SeattleGirl]

47. Wow, they've really lowered the "Stupid Bar" haven't they?

:wtf:

[mdmc]

54. kick