RIAA Sues Man for Ripping Legally Owned CDs to His Computer

[Lemur]

I kinda knew this was possible, but I didn't think the music labels would ever be stupid enough to do it. They're making good on their threat to sue people for copying their own CDs to their own computers. Gah. Double-gah with filling.

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 would like to introduce the record labels to my close personal friends, the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger.

[Banquo's Ghost]

They have to be kidding.

OK, so now I'm a pirate too. Is there now anyone in the world who is not a felon?

[TB666]

Is there now anyone in the world who is not a felon?

New borns ??
Anyway, I'm not surprised.
They lost the war a long time ago and this just shows that the end is near for them.

[FactionHeir]

Does this mean 90% of the ORG gets banned from the forum for being pirates?

I think what they are doing is ridiculous. Isn't there some clause in the law that allows you to make safe copies of your CDs/DVDs for personal use?

Besides, how did they find out he did so in the first place?

[TB666]

Besides, how did they find out he did so in the first place?

My guess, the copy protection on the cds.

[Lemur]

The man was probably hit with one of their driftnet lawsuits, retained a lawyer to defend himself instead of settling, and has a good line of defense. The RIAA's gambit is to claim that even if all they find on his PC is copies of his owned music, he's still a criminal. They're probably doing this just in case he really isn't a music pirate. (And anybody choosing to take it to court after the Jammie Thomas case is going to be quite aware that you don't take it to the jury unless you really are innocent of file-sharing.)

It's a classic slimy lawyer move, ask for everything, including the ridiculous, just in case the Judge is on PCP when the filings are read. As usual, there's no consideration for just how ridiculous it looks to the public, nor the way it will harden Joe Consumer's opinion about the record labels being corrupt vestiges of a copyright mafia.

It all depends on whether or not they can destroy the concept of Fair Use, which has a long legal history in the U.S. The RIAA wants to treat all music as a one-off licensing deal -- in other words, when you purchase any sort of music, you're purchasing the right to play it in that format, and possibly only on a single, authorized device. I'm sure they would also love to limit how often you can listen to it without paying again.

Idiots. Complete, technophobic, slobbering, greedy idiots.

[Bijo]

Yep. I am not surprised.

[Beirut]

Something's going to happen to make this whole situation implode. Some person's action, some judge's ruling, some bit of technology is going to hit the RIAA's house of cards and the whole thing will collapse with them inside.

The situation is too big, too volatile, too widespread, and too stupid to remain as it is.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So the RIAA is saying downloading music illegally is as bad as copying purchased music to your computer?

I've always been of the opinion that hating the way music is sold is no excuse for pirating, but if they call this pirating, well...

CR

[KukriKhan]

Riaa'a just p.o.'d that Bill Gates figured out software licensing protocols before they did, and they wanna retroactively apply his magic scheme to their products, and become as rich as he.

Or so I explain it to myself.

It's gonna take well-written Acts of Congress to make this insanity cease - but I don't think we're gonna see much action in that arena 'til after next November's elections.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Idiots. Complete, technophobic, slobbering, greedy idiots.

They don't see a way to make the current profit scales from the new technology. Until they do, Luddism will dog their thinking.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sick, disgusting. I hope the layer somehow has an accident.

Sad if of of the major representatives of the struggle against piracy can't recognize friend from foe, and thus undermines this struggle. Piracy is a threat towards not only the companies, but also to our countries. Too bad RIAA tries as hard as they can to lose in the long run by using terror tactics against innocent civilians.

[Papewaio]

Actually with software it acts in the dead opposite. You buy a license for the software, you don't buy the software. The original media it is on is not important. That you only load it on as many as currently licensed is. If you decommission an old machine that frees up one of the licenses.

So by IT standards you would buy a single user license for music. You then load the music to the place of your choice and play it from there. If you license is a single user then you can only load it to one machine at a time. If it is a multi-user license then the number of machines it can be loaded on is governed by that number. Typically it is a multiple of 5 as System admins can't add unless it is binary or multiples of 5. Now must software suppliers allow you to store the original software and a copy of it so that you can reload the media on to the licensed computer as needed.

=][=

Things like DVD regions are restraint of fair trade. They create artificial barriers to free trade and are not used to determine the languages or other special features. It is merely used to stop DVDs that are sold cheaper in some regions being shipped to other ones.

[Husar]

Here I think it's legal except if you circumvent copy protection, which is illegal.
Don't know how it is in the US but it sounds rather stupid. Hey, they can limit their music to one medium, maybe require money for every time you use it, they just shouldn't expect a lot of customers then.

[Blodrast]

Hehehe, I'd been waiting for this for a loooong time, dunno what took them this long.

Of course it's illegal, why are you all so surprised, this has been the state of things for years now, and they've been claiming this for years... You're not allowed to make backups, and format-shifting and time-shifting are illegal, and you're not allowed to "lend" your stuff to a friend. That's what the RIAA has been claiming aaaaalll these years, was past time they made good on their claims.

Also, as far as laws go, please, don't make me laugh. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but all the laws that have been passed so far are FOR the likes of the **AA's. Paid for and bought by them, all legit-like.
It was only a few weeks back that they pushed a bill to create a Federal branch to take care precisely of this sort of things... it was posted here in the backroom... How do you think that will affect things ?

[Blodrast]

Something's going to happen to make this whole situation implode. Some person's action, some judge's ruling, some bit of technology is going to hit the RIAA's house of cards and the whole thing will collapse with them inside.

The situation is too big, too volatile, too widespread, and too stupid to remain as it is.

Wishful thinking. The situation isn't widespread at all, 99% of the population isn't aware of anything (besides, possibly, some mild annoyance with the unskippable DVD anti-piracy threats). Jammie Thomas's trial should have proven that to you very clearly. It will take maaaany years and maaaany people affected, before the common folk even become vaguely aware of this.

And, Kukri, the Congress ? Who do you think passed the DMCA ? Who passed all these laws ? Who gives the go for creating that Federal branch ?
As for elections - why would that make a difference, since the re-election rate of congress-critters is 90% ? It'll be the same folks. And the remaining 10% will be from the same breed, anyway...

[Blodrast]

Oh, and apparently the WP article is kinda poorly phrased. While the RIAA do call the ripped songs "illegal", that isn't what they are suing for; they are suing for placing the songs in a shared directory.

[Hepcat]

Why do they spend so much money on lawyers against this poor sod? Seems pretty stupid to me. My computer is on a local network and My Documents is shared, which also includes where I keep my music since I rip all my albums to my computer and sort them into folders. Does that mean I'm eligible to be sued too?

[Blodrast]

Why do they spend so much money on lawyers against this poor sod? Seems pretty stupid to me. My computer is on a local network and My Documents is shared, which also includes where I keep my music since I rip all my albums to my computer and sort them into folders. Does that mean I'm eligible to be sued too?

That would depend on NZ law, and the equivalent of the **AA's in NZ.

As to your first question, it's simple: for one thing, if you can get a precedent, then that decision becomes entrenched into law, and you can continue to sue left and right successfully. For another, most people are intimidated by their practice, and settle before going to court (and cough up the 3k). Furthermore, making examples of people/victims has obvious benefits.

[Husar]

Oh, and apparently the WP article is kinda poorly phrased. While the RIAA do call the ripped songs "illegal", that isn't what they are suing for; they are suing for placing the songs in a shared directory.

That changes the situation a little bit, sharing them over the internet or a LAN with other computers used by other persons would be illegal.

Makes me wonder though whether everyone at a party has to own every CD that the host plays?
Here at big commercial or public parties the host pays a certain fee but at small private parties it's fine AFAIK.

[Blodrast]

That changes the situation a little bit, sharing them over the internet or a LAN with other computers used by other persons would be illegal.

Makes me wonder though whether everyone at a party has to own every CD that the host plays?
Here at big commercial or public parties the host pays a certain fee but at small private parties it's fine AFAIK.

No, no, no. So far, RIAA have never actually shown any proof of sharing. Things being in a shared directory, and things being actually shared, are two different situations. Mind you, for the distinguished people of Duluth (some of whom proudly claimed they'd never used the internet before) it doesn't matter.

And one of the finer points is that their lawyers are trying to push two things at the same time: they are suing over things being shared, but they're saying (again) that ripping your own stuff is illegal; if they win, then they'll be able to claim precedent on the illegality of ripping your own (...) stuff, since they'd lumped it with this other claim.


This is really, really cool: this used to be on the RIAA's website, but it has since been removed - but not before it was archived... as I'm sure everybody knows, these days they're claiming slightly different things... The irony...

linky to what the RIAA used to say

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

Slightly different from what their head lawyer says when they claim that ripping your own CDs is illegal, wouldn't you say ?

[sapi]

That changes the situation a little bit, sharing them over the internet or a LAN with other computers used by other persons would be illegal.

So the *AA would like all the media streaming devices that have appeared in recent years to be ruled illegal too?

And they wonder why they're becoming irrelevant

No, no, no. So far, RIAA have never actually shown any proof of sharing. Things being in a shared directory, and things being actually shared, are two different situations.

Yep, and if they can get a precedent here that indicates that being shared is enough (rather than having to prove uploads) they'd have a field day

[HoreTore]

With the Almighty Power of my new senior membership, I rule in favour of the defendant and order RIAA's lawyers to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

This is what I can use the title for, right?

[Banquo's Ghost]

With the Almighty Power of my new senior membership, I rule in favour of the defendant and order RIAA's lawyers to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

This is what I can use the title for, right?

Yes it is.

You just have to read the sub-clause that states no-one will take any notice.

[TB666]

Oh, and apparently the WP article is kinda poorly phrased. While the RIAA do call the ripped songs "illegal", that isn't what they are suing for; they are suing for placing the songs in a shared directory.

So, I put all my music in a shared folder so that I can connect to my computer through my Xbox360, thus make me able to listen to my music while playing.
That's illegal then ?? Even tho, I only share with myself ??

[R'as al Ghul]

That's illegal then ?? Even tho, I only share with myself ??

Since the Jammie Thomas case the RIAA tries to establish that ripping a CD to digital format is already a breach of copyright. Putting it in a shared folder makes you a pirate if your PC has an internet connection. If not than they'll just sue you for breaching copyright.

If you choose to take our own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's illegal. It's our music and we only want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail if you continuously pay us for each instance.

Fixed.

[Husar]

No, no, no. So far, RIAA have never actually shown any proof of sharing. Things being in a shared directory, and things being actually shared, are two different situations.

Didn't say that.
I just said if he did that, that would be illegal, logically, a shared folder that isn't shared isn't shared since it cannot be shared without being shared except if logical refers to the program structure of the OS but since when does that dictate laws?

So the *AA would like all the media streaming devices that have appeared in recent years to be ruled illegal too?

Well, radio stations do pay fees for broadcasting, so should internet radio stations. What I've been wondering about though is the recording from radio and TV, it's offered pretty much everywhere and it's been technically possible for years and noone really pays a thing.

Again here it's legal for private use only AFAIK, you can record anything on TV for private use, as long as you do not take money from your friends when you watch a recorded movie with them, it's perfectly legal.

This sounds a bit like they could also sue you for not locking away your recorded TV programs or your legally bought DVDs claiming that they were lying on a shared shelf.
If I were American, I'd lock all my music and movies away now.
Or better yet, lock them away and don't buy any more.

[TB666]

Bastards, plain and simple bastards.
And what is worse is that it doesn't matter if it's illegal or legal in the country that you live, they will demand that you get shipped to the US to stand trial.

[English assassin]

Sick, disgusting. I hope the la[w]yer somehow has an accident.

Yeah, yeah, "first thing we do lets kill all the lawyers", teh old. Unless the lawyers really have initiated this whole sue the customers business strategy all on their own, in which case you have a point.

The case itself really is mind boggling. I hadn't realised that if I copied a CD to a computer I shared with my family, it makes me a pirate. I'd better take all the CDs out of the car, too, because sometimes the whole family listens to those, even though only I bought them. Three of them are young children, but hell, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be sued, does it?

[KukriKhan]

And, Kukri, the Congress ? Who do you think passed the DMCA ? Who passed all these laws ? Who gives the go for creating that Federal branch ?
As for elections - why would that make a difference, since the re-election rate of congress-critters is 90% ? It'll be the same folks. And the remaining 10% will be from the same breed, anyway...

Of course, you're right. My point is: the courts are obliged to enforce by the law(s) currently poorly-written. The only way to fix this problem ("problem" from our point-of-view) is for those law-writers to write better law - law that does not criminalize 65% of the population, for 2 big reasons:

1) it's unfair to a vast swath of the citizenry
2) it breeds contempt for law generally

Congress are the guys with that job assignment; they're 'busy' campaigning for the next 8-9 months.