RIAA declares CD-Ripping 'illegal'

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2007-12-30 03:57am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00693.html

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

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.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

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.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.
ad_icon

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

I for one, am going to celebrate by committing a mass infringement spree. BY MOVING FILES ON AND OFF DISCS. Thousands of bits are being stolen AS WE SPEAK.

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2007-12-30 04:54am

I don't that MP3 player company will be happy.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-12-30 04:56am

Eh. Anyone who can still be upset or surprised by the RIAA these days is either heartrendingly innocent or a very, very slow learner.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2007-12-30 06:17am

Oh noes! The RIAA is going to... hit another 11-year old living with his grandmother with a multi-million dollar fine?

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2007-12-30 06:34am

Ha ha ha, I just ripped my new Maiden CD about an hour ago, and am in fact listening to it from my PC without the hassle of having the CD in the drive.

oh noez, i am teh criminal

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2007-12-30 07:04am

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:oh noez, i am teh criminal

a smooth criminal

This makes me happy to live in the 3rd World.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-12-30 12:33pm

What a bunch of idiots. There used to be this service in the record stores where you can record a cassette of music that you buy by the song. It may have been .50 .75 cents for the cheapest songs, etc.

Why can't they do this with .mp3's? Why can't THEY become Napster or something? People that buy the CDs in stores would get all the extras, like photos, liner notes, maybe a DVD, lyrics, etc.

DarthShady · Post by **DarthShady** » 2007-12-30 01:20pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:oh noez, i am teh criminal
a smooth criminal

This makes me happy to live in the 3rd World.

Me too.

This is hilarious, they could sue me for millions if i was an American!(MP3 rules)

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2007-12-30 01:25pm

Wouldn't this make the entire concept of MP3 players illegal?

Are the RIAA fucking nuts?

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2007-12-30 01:26pm

More musicians should do what Radiohead did with their last album, and simply put it online for whatever people are willing to spend. The profits are almost guaranteed to be greater due to a lack of record company gouging, and if this becomes more than a one-off trend, the RIAA will eventually be forced to take notice.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2007-12-30 01:27pm

What if I transfer my CD's to an MP3 player, and then delete the copy on my computer? I seem to have committed a copyright violation.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2007-12-30 01:43pm

This violates the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which permits unlimited private use of any legally purchased media content on CD. Copies may not be distributed, but a private individual may copy a CD onto computer or tape or any other media, so long as it is not distributed. The RIAA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here - it's an established, well-known law that permits the copying of music into any other media for private use.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2007-12-30 01:45pm

iTunes rips CDs... millions of people use iTunes... Apple distributes iTunes for illegal purposes... billions of defenseless bits are being stripped of their rights as we speak...

RIAA vs Apple, FIGHT!

NoXion · Post by **NoXion** » 2007-12-30 01:53pm

Is the RIAA that deluded that it can think it can dictate the law? I thought that was someone elses job...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-12-30 01:53pm

Zac Naloen wrote: Are the RIAA fucking nuts?

Do you even have to ask?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-12-30 02:59pm

I await them taking several hundred million people from the First World to court then.

Oh, wait. This is reality. And that isn't going to happen.

A waste of valuable ones and zeroes is all this statement is. The RIAA should be sued for wasting valuable organic minerals.

Styphon · Post by **Styphon** » 2007-12-30 03:13pm

Wait a minute: If we make our own ridiculous "activist" group, and our group declares that willful stupidity is a crime, we can sue the entire RIAA for being criminally stupid! It's foolproof!

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-12-30 03:38pm

Styphon wrote:Wait a minute: If we make our own ridiculous "activist" group, and our group declares that willful stupidity is a crime, we can sue the entire RIAA for being criminally stupid! It's foolproof!

Only if we become a billion-dollar industry first.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-12-30 03:49pm

NoXion wrote:Is the RIAA that deluded that it can think it can dictate the law? I thought that was someone elses job...

Yes, they are. And yes, they can, until someone in government grows a pair and decides to stop them in stead of rolling over and doing everything Big Media demands.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-12-30 04:00pm

I suppose taking photographs is stealing and altering the photons that have bounced off RIAA-owned trademarks, too. Why can't republicans get in scandals over mp3s and copyright infringement instead of homosexual acts? Other than the fact they're all incredibly out of date rich white guys, of course.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-30 04:41pm

The Dark wrote:This violates the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which permits unlimited private use of any legally purchased media content on CD. Copies may not be distributed, but a private individual may copy a CD onto computer or tape or any other media, so long as it is not distributed. The RIAA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on here - it's an established, well-known law that permits the copying of music into any other media for private use.

Don't you know? That was changed. No one can tell you where the new law is, or where to read it, but it totally was. And thus the RIAA is always in the right. Always, always, always.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2007-12-30 05:21pm

This is horseshit. Seeing as they don't make the laws in the US or anywhere else, this doesn't apply to anyone. Last I checked my taxes didn't go to the RIAA, they went to Queen Elizabeth's Minister of Finance in Canada. That's the government that can tell me what to do.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-12-30 05:53pm

Same here, apart from obvious differences in tax recipient.

I believe this is highly appropriate.

loomer · Post by **loomer** » 2007-12-30 07:19pm

Oh noes, I'm stealing t3h musics! Stop me before I rip again!

Jesus Christ. While not surprising, it is bizarre to see just how big a ditch they're digging for themselves.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2007-12-30 08:25pm

Let's see, I just got a new computer. I'm uploading pretty much my entire music collection on to it. Individual tracks numbering in the quintiple digits.

According to the RIAA, I should be brought up for crimes against humanity by now.