MP3s You've Ripped Yourself Are Still "Unauthorized" By The RIAA
Ars Technica says that the RIAA filed a brief last week that claimed that mp3 files ripped from a defendant's own CDs were "unauthorized."
Atlantic v. Howell is a bit unusual because the defendants, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without the benefit of a lawyer. They were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.Previously, during the Jammie Thomas trial, Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation for Sony BMG, said that making copies of music you own for your own personal use is "stealing."The Howells have denied any copyright infringement on their part. In their response to the RIAA's lawsuit, they said that the MP3 files on their PC are and "always have been" for private use. "The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.
RIAA: Those CD rips of yours are still "unauthorized" [Ars Technica]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
Who the fuck is the RIAA?
How much more ridiculous can the RIAA get?
Then why sell mp3 players or Music CDs in the first place? If it's such a big deal then let the worthy listeners pay a jukebox machine or call the radio station to request their fav. song for a fee or something. RIAA is a group of deadbeats. If they really are concerned about their $$ then get the govt to come up with some (un)intelligence to nuke china and your piracy problems will be cut by 45%. :)
This again?
So this lawyer decided that they are going to make their own laws and redefine fair use?
Obviously, CDs need to be sold entombed in a special listening device that can only work in an RIAA "safe room" where you and only you can listen to the music without prying ears or risk of copying.
Then the memory of the song should be erased from your brain so you don't go around humming it or, worst case, singing it out loud.
I'm all for fair use, but this isn't a fair use issue. They ripped the CD's to their "Shared Documents" folder and shared them over Kazaa.
Mr Fantastic is impressed at the stretch that argument makes to find a basis to sue someone. Hopefully, the time will come that judges start throwing out suits brought by the RIAA, after they compose themselves from all of the laughter.
What is the point of purchasing music- or anything else for that matter- if you really never own it? The RIAA and other companies with absurd EULA's ar simply diggin their own graves. The record industry needs to wake up and realize that their system is broken, and that for most consumers it is easier to steal than purchase. That's not even bringing up flawed DRM, rootkits, and other backhanded ways the RIAA bitchslaps their actual consumers.
@nobodyman: I'm talking about
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy',"
A student at the University of Pennsylvania who received a pre-litigation letter from the RIAA is interviewed in today's edition of The Daily Pennsylvanian.
She paid $3K instead of going to court. According to the article, "... she wonders if she might have done more good by putting up a fight."
"Settling was 'definitely the easiest option, but I feel guilty that in the long run maybe I could have made a difference challenging them,' she said."
Dr. Zoidberg (dials phone):
Only $14.99 for a two-record set? Two records! Oh Zoidberg, at last you're becoming a crafty consumer! [Someone on the other end picks up.] Hello? I'll take eight! (edit)
One thing is for sure, this approach seems not so successful? People are sure hatin!
@nobodyman:
exactly. The problem isn't that they ripped their own cd's, the problem is that they ripped their own cd's and then shared them on a file-sharing network.
I think the music industry is kicking themselves in the nuts by cracking down on file sharing, but right now the law is on their side...
They certainly would, if the karaoke bars didn't pay for performance rights, which they do.
haha...
I wonder, if one of the candidates offered to change laws about music and file sharing, could that get them elected?
If I were a lawyer for the defense, I would use a sony mp3 player or sony minidisc player as proof that Sony fully authorizes, encourages, even induces ripping of music from cds.
I guess if I want to make copies of my own CDs to keep in my car in case they get stolen is against the law? Fuck you RIAA. You have done nothing good for the business you're involved in.
Copying copyrighted material is a violation of the Copyright Act.
The RIAA is describing this as "unauthorized" b/c if authorization had been given, this wouldn't be a problem. It's up to the court to decide if it was "illegal". In other words, the RIAA is trying to state the reasons why this was illegal and not just jumping to the conclusion that it was illegal.
Fair Use will come into play, but it's up to the defendants to perfect that as a defense. Considering that they are not represented, it might be tough to articulate that, ESPECIALLY b/c there also seems to be evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.
@girly: In any case, this isn't a case of a lawyer redefining Fair Use. When you look at Fair Use, there are factors that the court must take into account: there is NO cut and dry rule in the US that says that personal use is OK (although it's very persuasive). Once it's being shared, though, your argument is weakened. ALSO, if you look at the last factor, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," the RIAA might be trying to establish that ripping one's own CDs wrecks the market for mp3s sold over the internet through authorized distributors.
@nutrigm: MP3 players have legitimate uses: ripping/storing public domain files and other uses that fall squarely within Fair Use. If you follow Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.(the Betamax case), those legitimate uses allow for MP3 players to exist.
I'm not saying that any of this is the right thing for the RIAA to do or even that they will be successful, but none of this is surprising or reaching from a legal point of view.
No, they are saying ripping your own CD's for personal or any other use is the problem.
From Gizmodo:
"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer ... Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. ... Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife's use."
@cde: I forgot to add, that sony has mp3 players way before the advent of "legal" digital song purchases and places like iTunesStore or Microsofts Digital Store, etc.
This kind of nonsense is why I don't buy anything from RIAA artists and labels anymore.
Visit [www.riaaradar.com] before buying anything to see if it's RIAA safe.
Attention RIAA...I sometimes listen cd's in my car while I have passengers. The passengers do not own a copy of the cd. Please don't sue me for unauthorized 'sharing.'
"I'm all for fair use, but this isn't a fair use issue. They ripped the CD's to their "Shared Documents" folder and shared them over Kazaa"
How can an attorney prove that users who put music into said folder were aware of the implications. For example I do not file share, but use my shared folder as an actual shared folder within my household network of computers. Now if my brother comes over and downloads Kazaa am I guilty? Not in anyway anyone could prove I would imagine.
@cde: and they sell computers which are essentially paraphernalia for creating mp3's
somehow I am also reminded of Prince who wanted a youtube video taken down where is music was being played in the *background*
@nobodyman: According to their brief, their music was NOT set up for sharing. Unless Kazaa has a different "shared" folder, I don't think having items in a shared folder is grounds to definitively say they were distributing in the internet. For example, I have a home media system. I place things in my Shared folder for distribution throughout the computers in my house, does that mean I am trading the files with others? No.
And Sony's point is that merely ripping a CD is against the law. Instead of killing innocent people in a mall, or a school why don't the wackjobs go after people in the RIAA???
It's really a shame that our government has completely sold us out to this corporate interest.
Better look out, BMI will be next suing you to recover fees for public airing of their property. Hell, I hope I didn't just put a bug in their ear!
Well, I think if this is how the RIAA wants to play it, I think they should put big warning lables on the CDs they sell saying that it is illegal convert their music to be used in MP3 players.
See how many CDs they sell after that...
@backbroken:
Better look out, BMI/ASCAP will be next suing you to recover fees for public airing of their property. Hell, I hope I didn't
@backbroken: Attn RIAA-
Sometimes I sing in the shower, and my roommates/neighbor can hear me. Please don't sue me.
Hugs and Kisses,
KingFriday
RIAA can go to hell. I rip all of my CDs for mobility.
@backbroken: Don't worry, you're a low priority target. Unlike my neighbor who also listens to CDs in his car, but makes sure the entire neighborhood can hear the (what he calls) music.
@backbroken: That's nonsense. Playing a CD for friends in a car is not "sharing" neither is it a "performance." That's pretty well established.
I hate to be a dick, but a lot of people replying to the post just don't have the facts straight. It's fine to be against what the RIAA is doing, but it's not OK to accuse them of doing something they are not, nor probably won't do b/c of the established law.
When people don't argue intelligently, it really makes your/our position look bad.
I think I listened to my wife's unauthorized humming to a song she heard on the radio.
RIAA, don't taze me bro!
So what happens then when you purchase an MP3 via iTunes or the like, then proceed to burn it onto a CD to listen to in the car?
@RAREBREED: I was under the impression that the DRM in iTunes was there to act as a license so that you are only authorized to copy the mp3 or burn it a certain number of times. In other words: in some cases you are licensed to make copies.
I bet the fact that this couple is defending themselves without a lawyer is the reason why the RIAA is making such an outlandish claim. People without lawyers don't usually fare well vs hired arguers. If they win this, then they get a nice juicy precedent to hold over everybody's heads.
The music labels have not explicitly "authorized" copying from one's own CDs, but they have not explicitly "unauthorized" it either.
They and the RIAA have been purposefully vague on defining copying at the point of sale, and exactly for this reason. They will call copying "fair use" or some other knockoff of "freedom"/"choice" when they are trying to market and sell the CD, and then when it is politically or legally expedient for copying to be called "stealing", they will do that too.
Can you imagine the PR blowback if RIAA labels put a sticker on every CD saying that you cannot ever rip it? Oh, we would sit and laugh and roast marshmallows here at Consumerist!
Funny, the RIAA didn't seem to be too interested when I was compiling multiple tracks of copyrighted material onto blank cassettes fifteen years ago.
@rubinow: I thought there was a case someone won where they were allowed to make backups of their CDs, that is why I'm saying she wants to redefine the law...
@girly: There might be. I'm not aware of it. Again: there are Fair Use factors, but each case is different.
Didn't I hear once that not exact copies are not considered illegal - that is for example, recording a song from the radio? If this is so, then why doesn't someone make a ripper that will insert very low inaudible "stuff" into a song to make it not an exact copy?
But anyway - if you buy a license to a song by buying a tape or CD, I believe you own a copy of that song to be listen by yourself any way you want - what gives anyone the right to tell me I'm not listening to my song the correct way?
Some one should really start a counter. We can see how long it takes before the RIAA completely dies. For years the buisness has been ripping off both artists & consumers alike.
This is just another attempt at an organization on it's deathbed looking to survive another day. I honestly can't wait till musicians band togeather and shun the big labels in favor of distributing their music directly to the public. Consumers would be happier, artists would be making much more profit and have more control over their work. The world would simply be a much better place.
Attention RIAA: "unauthorized" does not mean the same thing as "illegal".