Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is the RIAA Cracking Down on Ripping CDs?
Topic Started: Jan 9 2008, 11:25 AM (287 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 

Is the RIAA Cracking Down on Ripping CDs?


Also: New Brookland Tavern to Host Battle of the Bands

BY PATRICK WALL


Now that it’s won its file-sharing lawsuit against Minnesota music lover Jammie Thomas, is the Recording Industry Association of America taking its fight against music sharing one step further? The RIAA filed a lawsuit against Scottsdale, Ariz., resident Jeffrey Howell not for sharing music but for keeping a collection of 2,000-plus music recordings on his personal computer. The RIAA’s reasoning? The MP3 files on Howell’s computer made from legally bought albums are unauthorized copies of copyrighted recordings.

Did you catch that? Let me repeat that: According to Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, the RIAA asserts that it’s illegal for someone who has legally purchased a record to digitally transfer that music onto his or her personal computer. Meaning if you rip a CD on to your machine, you could be on the hook for copyright infringement.

At least, that’s what Fisher asserted in a story filed on Dec. 30, and if that’s true, that’s a monumentally frightening sentiment for any music lover with a computer, iPod or any portable music device. And on its web site, the RIAA’s position seems pretty clear: “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,” it says.

But there’s a sticky wicket to the argument. The sticking point: Where the files are placed. The legal brief the RIAA filed against Howell is worded thusly: “Once (Howell) converted plaintiff’s recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff.”

So according to the RIAA, it’s not the act of ripping the files, but the appearance of intent to share those files on a peer-to-peer network that raises the red flag.

“As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement,” RIAA spokesman Jonathan Larry told CNet’s news.com. “This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use.”

For clarity’s sake, the RIAA still asserts that digitally transferred copies of legally purchased music are still unauthorized, but not illegal. (At least not until they’re shared.) And by our estimation, unauthorized doesn’t mean illegal, but there’s a mountain of difficult legalese wrapped around the distinction. And who’s to define what is and is not a shared folder?

For his part, Fisher’s standing by his claim.

“The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA’s publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is OK and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act,” Fisher wrote in an email defending his story to news.com. “Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base.”

Even Google copyright guru William Patry, who heavily criticized Fisher on his blog, agrees with the basic sentiment. “This new rhetoric of ‘everything anyone does without permission is stealing’ is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion,” he wrote.

It’s undeniable that Fisher goofed. Still, the RIAA’s treading scary ground here, regardless of whether you think it’s defending an untenable position. We here at The Playlist urge you music lovers: Be careful out there, because while it’s not illegal to upload legally purchased music onto your machine right now, who knows when that could change.


http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=19...460801081190943


Why is it that only the new entertainment media the only things that get such out raged over this sort of thing. For example how many text book authors have lost money because students went to the library and made a few photo-copies instead of buying their own copy of the book? Why aren’t these people up in arms over it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Smacks of desperation
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
captain_proton_au
Jan 9 2008, 11:41 AM
Smacks of desperation

Whos desperation? the RIAA is wining all their lawsuits.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
What effect would this ruling have on the thousands of music video clips available on Youtube?

I was curious about one song on the list that was taken down (a familiar song, but not the version I was used to) I easily found a clip of the artist on Youtube singing the song. From the comments I ascertained that the clip came from a DVD which of course would have been copyrighted.

Rather then bothering individuals I think maybe the RIAA should be more concerned about a commercial enterprise like Youtube.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Rather then bothering individuals I think maybe the RIAA should be more concerned about a commercial enterprise like Youtube.

I agree, and for the most part I believe that they do go after larger bodies (rather than small potatoes). If I (personally) was really worried, I wouldn't have done it, nor would I have shared this information on a public message Board. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
Did you catch that? Let me repeat that: According to Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, the RIAA asserts that it’s illegal for someone who has legally purchased a record to digitally transfer that music onto his or her personal computer. Meaning if you rip a CD on to your machine, you could be on the hook for copyright infringement.

THe Washington Post already recanted this and admitted that they made an error in reporting this particular point. It is not illegal and the RIAA is not going after people for ripping CDs to their hard drive or portable device. They were going after those who were ripping to their hard drive and then placing it into a shared folder.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dandandat
Jan 9 2008, 10:46 AM
captain_proton_au
Jan 9 2008, 11:41 AM
Smacks of desperation

Whos desperation? the RIAA is wining all their lawsuits.

Most arent making it to court.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Hoss,

That's a huge distinction. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, and you may remain on the message Board as a result.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
The UK Government has this week proposed a change in UK copyright law that would allow people to rip CDs for personal use.

Perhaps that is a response to the tougher line and potential lawsuits from the like of the RIAA.

Either way a sensible move by the government, for once on the side of the consumer, I just hope that they stick to it and dont get beaten into submission by the industry.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Jan 9 2008, 12:41 PM
Quote:
 
Did you catch that? Let me repeat that: According to Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, the RIAA asserts that it’s illegal for someone who has legally purchased a record to digitally transfer that music onto his or her personal computer. Meaning if you rip a CD on to your machine, you could be on the hook for copyright infringement.

THe Washington Post already recanted this and admitted that they made an error in reporting this particular point. It is not illegal and the RIAA is not going after people for ripping CDs to their hard drive or portable device. They were going after those who were ripping to their hard drive and then placing it into a shared folder.

That was in this artical.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Thanks. I didn't read the info. from the link, only that which was provided in the post. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator



I think it would be laughable if they actually tried to take an average computer/media user to court as a test case.

I'm publicly admitting ripping all sorts of commercial CD material to my HD, and then on to my Xbox.


Come and get me.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
A big chunk of my cd collection currently resides on my Ipod.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Reading Franko's and Minuet's posts, I suddenly began thinking of Court Martial. There is probably no reason for me to be thinking of it, but alas, I was....
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Ben Finney is hiding in my hard drive, Fes. :o





Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus