RIAA: Ripping CDs Illegal
 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/...er_is_illegal/

As a media user, I want the freedom to use media as I please.

As a media producer, I want to prevent others from distributing or profiting from my work.

Is the RIAA overreaching?

The lawsuit was misinterpreted. The defendant had ripped CDs to a Kazaa share folder which was accessible to other Kazaa users. It is for the sharing that he was sued.

Thanks for the clarification, Paul!

Its just a sneaky way to try and build legal history
 

Its not that the person was sued for ripping, they are being sued for the sharing, however the RIAA's message has a little sneaky piece to it where they say CD backups are "unauthorized copies"
I say this is a good solution maybe 10 years tho...
http://slashdot.org/articles/08/01/02/1430228.shtml

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter what the RIAA says in the complaint. Complaints routinely have long narrative preambles that lay out the factual circumstances that support the complaint. These have no legal effect at all.

All that matters is whether the necessary elements for copyright infringement are pleaded. If the defendant doesn't like the language about "unauthorized copying" he can always move to strike it from the complaint.

I haven't read any of the pleadings in this case, so I'm just going by the news reports. However, technically, the RIAA is correct. The AHRA authorizes making copies of audio recordings for personal use. Because the copy created wasn't for personal use, but for sharing on Kazaa, it didn't come within the ambit of the AHRA. It was therefore unauthorized. None of this has the least bit of effect on the AHRA or, for that matter, fair use doctrine that permits limited copying for such purposes as, for example, putting an MP3 of a CD on your MP3 player.

Paul, I cannot find the orginal article, but I thought this was related to an Arizona case and not the one you mentioned. While the same thing was mentioned in her case, it was also part of another and has more weight there.

Personal thought - the wrong person is fighting the RIAA, the one Paul mentioned. I read some of the trial materials and evidence presented and I cannot find fault with the jurors on their verdict.

got to run

I just found this note that clarifies that Jeffery Howell is being sued for downloading and not ripping.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/r...erks-about-it/

I cannot edit through our content filter....


Here is the link to original article about the Jeffery Howell case. The clarification above indicates that this was not about personal ripping, but downloading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

You don't see too many indie music labels complaining these days. They release a record on vinyl, with a digital download coupon in the packaging. Everybody wins.
My vinyl collection tripled this year, and probably 3/4 of the records I bought had coupons for digital download in them.

Just goes to show that conglomerate record companies and the RIAA will never 'get it. in an age where us young folk can do absolutely everything at our computer except use the washroom, the RIAA won't stop people from finding a way.

The indie labels knew this from day one,
and what did they do...
THEY GOT CREATIVE!


(none of this implies it's right to steal, its just the truth)

Off the top of my head, there are a number of errors in this article. First, the AHRA provides the authorization for personal copying of audio recordings. Second, I believe there have been some reported cases that authorize copying music from CDs to mp3 players. Finally, as noted before, the judge is not going to rule on an RIAA claim that the mp3s were unauthorized copies because it's not at issue in the litigation. However, as I noted, above, I believe it is correct to describe the mp3s are unauthorized copies, not because they were ripped from CDs, but because they were made for the purpose of illegal distribution, which is not authorized by the AHRA and falls outside of fair use.

Paul, here is an instance that may meet the smell test of "it is illegal to copy your music for your use."

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/arch...?minute_id=251
Michael explains that the Howell case is not related (as we already know). The EMI vs MP3Tunes case is where they are saying it is illegal to make copies (Michael's new MP3 company allows you to put your music in a secure vault to access anywhere.)

For those wondering, Michael Robinson created MP3.com, Lindows (now Linspire), and now MP3Tunes. Another one of those venture capital guys. "DVD Jon" is currently one of his employees (not for his "cracking" skills, but because he is flipping smart when it comes to secure communications and computer things in general - hire a genius and figure out where to point him = profit).

It is against the law to make a copy of someone elses music for them. the company charges a fee to make a personal copy for the customer. In example, I can not take my walt disney movies to a 3rd party duplicator and pay them to make a few copies of each, yet I can make my own copies, assuming only for personal use. Michael is running a service for profit to copy and store copyright protected music.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the entire EMI complaint. However, on its face, it appears that MP3Tunes is either (1) giving free download access to mp3s that it or others create, or (2) storing copies of mp3s that subscribers can download.

That, by definition, is creating an unauthorized copy. The definition of "unauthorized copy" is very literal. When I transfer a file that is stored on my computer system to you, I have violated two reserved rights of copyright owners: I have publicly distributed protected expression, and I have created a copy of protected expression.

There are two bases in law that permits someone to copy music without authorization. The first is the AHRA, which confers what is strictly a personal right, i.e. I can make copies for myself, but I can't make them for you and, particularly, I can't make copies for commercial purposes. The other bases is fair use doctrine. Fair use is rather murky in this regard, as everything in this area builds on Sony v. Universal, the Betamax case that first held that copying, in very specific circumstances, may be permissible even if unauthorized. A couple of cassette and mp3 cases followed it which extended the original rationale (which involved time-shifting) to format-shifting.

There is, however, no unfettered right to copy protected expression because it is for personal use or related to personal use.

I haven't seen anything that says the RIAA is attempting to narrow the scope of either fair use or the AHRA.

Correct.

Sorry, but incorrect. The AHRA applies to audio recordings, only, and not video. Under Sony and the mp3 cases, time-shifting of video is permissible and, possibly, format-shifting (but see the cases that decided against the manufacturer of a home video server that would let you copy DVDs to a file server and distribute them throughout a personal LAN). Other than that, there is absolutely no bases in law for making copies of DVDs (or video tapes) for personal use.

MP3Tunes does not make copies from what I found. It is a copy, so I guess that is the grey.

Here is the content from the About.