http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... rized.html

RIAA: Those CD rips of yours are still "unauthorized"

By Eric Bangeman | Published: December 11, 2007 - 10:46AM CT

Those MP3 and AAC files that you've ripped from your CD collection are still "unauthorized copies" in the eyes of the recording industry. In a brief filed late last week, the RIAA said that the MP3 files on a PC owned by a file-sharing defendant who had admitted to ripping them himself were "unauthorized copies."

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.

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.

After several years of litigation and nearly 30,000 lawsuits, making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is still a concept that the recording industry is apparently uncomfortable with. During the Jammie Thomas trial this fall, the head of litigation from Sony BMG testified that she believed that ripping your own CDs is stealing.

When asked by the RIAA's lead counsel whether it was wrong for consumers to make copies of CDs they have purchased, Jennifer Pariser replied in the negative. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.

At least the recording industry is consistent. Last year, during the triennial review of the DMCA by the US Copyright Office, the record labels made the case that although consumers could freely and easily make copies of music on CDs, doing so is not explicitly authorized by the labels. Since they have not expressly authorized copying—even for the purposes of making backups—the ability to make copies should not be mistaken for fair use.

Based on the filing in Atlantic v. Howell and Pariser's testimony, a lot of us have a bunch of "unauthorized" and "stolen" music on our hard drives—music that we've purchased ourselves. The recording industry may finally be making some serious strides to win consumers over by removing the shackles of DRM, but its continued insinuations that its customers are thieves threatens to disperse any build-up of goodwill among its customers.

Hopefully this ridiculous argument is the last straw. How can they continue to go to court with this stupid, stupid point of view? I've been a signed artist on a major label, with smart people who love music, and they can't possibly be in favor of this attack on us. At this point, it's just the five bosses and the RIAA desperately trying to hold on to their power. Wow. Even for them, this case is almost beyond belief.

What a load of crap!

I'll bet that at this point, even the RIAA doesn't believe the B.S. that they're chucking. It sounds more like they're trying to convince themselves than the general public.

The one reason the bastards of the RIAA might win here is because the Howells don't have an attorney. USA fair use laws make the RIAA's allegations a joke. The Riaa & MPAA have shown they love to go after folks with no money to set a legal precedent.

Watch the RIAA's lobbyists in congress very carefully. There is nothing in the US constitution that says they can't bribe your congressperson to change US fair use laws.

& as much as I hate the Republicans, I see a potential concern on this issue with both political parties.

Geff... Your second paragraph reminded me of something. Boycott-riaa.com used to have a list of the RIAA's political contributions. The last time I tried to find the info, I had no luck. Not sure if it was removed or if I just couldn' find it.

Just out of curiosity, is iTunes illegal in the eyes of the RIAA?? I download a song, so it is on my computer, where I can listen to it at any time. I am free to burn those tracks to CD seven times! So, obviously, it is not illegal to have multiple copies of the songs which I have rightfully paid for. Isn't this really the same thing?

I hope the criminals in the RIAA get their just desserts and end up on the unemployment line (or in a prison, where they really belong) and that the people who MAKE the music begin reaping the rewards of their efforts once and for all.

And, don't even get me started on record labels' trying to get involved in concert promotion and booking

Just ridiculous. When do they start going after people for whistling or singing? Oh, and you better keep the volume down on your car stereo, because if anyone outside can hear for free, that's unauthorized.
I repeat this every time such topics come up: the ONLY people penalized by your actions, mafIAA, are your legitimate customers. Pirates will just happily go on, no matter what you do.

It's official...Big Brother has arrived.

And they wonder why the music industry is in the toilet!!! Idiots!!!

We're having some folks over for a Christmas get-together in a couple of weeks. Guess we'd better not play any music!

So let me try to get this right. I should buy multiple copies of the same disc if I want one for home , one for the car, and one for work. Seems fair.

No you fool! You are supposed to take the same disc with you everywhere you go! When it wears out or gets ruined you then purchase a replacement.

Really, that is what they expect......isn't it? Jay

Truer words were never spoken.

I believe I've spend well over $50,000 on their product for my personal collection in my lifetime. And they want to sue me if I make a compilation for my car???????

Singing or humming a song from a previously purchased CD is in fact an illegal replica of said CD and can be construed as piracy.

They've finally progressed beyond the level of an SNL or SCTV skit. Even the most inspired comedy writers couldn't come up with silliness to match this.

Problem is this silliness may cost the couple who was sued a minor fortune & set a legal precedent. Let's hope the judge can see past them being their own attorneys.

This is nothing new. Back in the 80's, before the U.S. Congress was persuaded to step in and levy a surcharge on blank audiocassettes, record companies insisted it was illegal to tape your own LP's to use in your car tapedeck or Sony Walkman.

I'm assuming the surcharge is still in place, although lord knows how many audiocassettes are still used to "pirate" music in this fashion. I might check on this further...

This raises a really good point!!!! Isn't there a surcharge on CD-Rs as well (and for the same reasons)? How could there be a surcharge for something that is illegal? Wouldn't that surcharge in itself legitimize the activity?

I know there was some sort of fundraiser on behalf of some woman who got screwed over by the RIAA a few months ago. Hopefully, someone will do the same thing on behalf of these folks (or maybe some lawyer will step in and take the case for free, just for the sake of standing up for what is right.)

Everytime I read crap like this, it makes me wanna burn a CD...and give it to someone!!

Their is a surcharge on "consumer audio" blanks. aka "music" cdr's. These are only required & only used in "consumer" (i.e. not professional) standalone cd recorders.

Hey RIAA............FUCK YOU!!!! If I lend my cd to a friend and he makes a copy of it for himself...........and I don't know about it, it's his damned business. If I copy it to my ipod or make a copy for myself it's my business. I BOUGHT THE FUCKING CD!!!!!! RIAA once again in case you didn't get it the first time...........FUCK YOU!!!! M.

To take it further, in the late 70s/early 80s, there was an article in Rolling Stone (which I don't think I have any more) where the industry claimed that home taping cost them over $1 BILLION dollars the previous year. Someone pointed out that they'd never sold $1B worth of stuff in a year (at that point). Total and utter morons.



That's exactly what the RIAA says. Hilary Rosen was directly quoted a few years ago as saying that making a copy for your car or work was not protected fair use. You want a second copy, you buy a second copy.



Excellent point! Not only that, but by the RIAA's argument, the iPod and any MP3 player is inherently illegal. If you download a track, you usually make a copy on the portable player to listen to. One of the copies must be illegal, according to them.

Screw the RIAA - the sooner they're extinct, the better. The labels have ripped off more artists than anyone has.

And they're piling on...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22251370/. The WHIPER act intends to make the penalties for sharing even worse.

Alan

Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now!
Argh matey! Draconian laws won't save the misguided record industry
By
Helen A.S. Popkin
updated 10:50 a.m. ET, Fri., Dec. 14, 2007

Way back in the day when students still got suspended for coming to school with purple hair and black fingernails, I was this weird esoteric kid into the Who, David Bowie, Nina Hagen and Alice Cooper. I didn't have many friends.

Then I met this other weird esoteric kid really into Elton John — an artist that I didn't know much about. So in the spirit of new friendship, my fellow outcast, "Bennie," brought in every single one of her Elton John records to school — on vinyl, as was the style of the day — for me to borrow.

This unrequested, but nevertheless generous and trusting gesture, necessitated that I carry her hefty stack of LPs on the bus and then 12 1/2 blocks home from the bus stop in the 3 p.m. Florida sun. A hardship, but worth it. Whether or not you appreciate the pop genius of "Captain Fantastic & the Brown Dirt Cowboy," everyone without amnesia knows such youthful exchanges are life-changing.

Here in the new millennium, a more convenient exchange commiserate with today's technology (via MP3s) would make Bennie a criminal. A pirate, if you want to be colorful. You know, like Johnny Depp.

Last week, Congress introduced the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (PRO IP Act), a bipartisan bill aimed at increasing civil penalties and criminal enforcement for copyright infringement, i.e., sharing MP3s.

This Draconian bit of legislation also proposed a new federal agency tasked with the management and enforcement, titled appropriately, WHIPER (White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative).

Meanwhile, across the blogosphere, outraged audiophiles argue the interpretation of this vague 69-page bill written in dense legalese. Does it mean you can't make an MP3 of music you've already purchased? Does it mean you can't make a mix CD and give it to your crush? Are you allowed to make an MP3 of music you've purchased as long as you don't place it in a file which others can access?

More cynically, maybe those in power will interpret the PRO IP Act on a case by case basis, in a way that suits best. Take, for example, this statement from Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.): "By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society."

Um, what? How exactly does innovation and creativity prosper when ultimate utilization of new technology that allows others to share and access creativity at a rate never known before in civilization is crushed by legislation?

Note: This bill's introduction followed the $222,000 verdict in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America over a Minnesota mom who shared 24 songs on Kazaa. Much of the RIAA's ire and action, however, is aimed at college students — those historically noted for spreading innovation, creativity and ideas and at an exponential rate.

Currently, those kids caught sharing music via their college's IP are served $3,000 to $5,000 fines with the threat of a lawsuit if they don't pay up, not to mention academic penalties from some participating universities whether they pay the fine or not.

On the surface, it seems almost idiotic that so much time and money is lobbed against accidental pirates sharing music without malicious intent — especially when there's serious off-shore piracy raking in actual money from doing the same with videos.

The intent here is to teach its largest group of "end users" not to touch the stove. The RIAA is attempting to turn back the tide of so-called bad behavior record companies erroneously believe is ruining their industry. (That's right kids, Britney Spears, et al., ain't got nothin' to do with it!)

Here's why it won't work. Copyright law is antiquated. It wasn't ready for digital technology, and by the time concerned enterprises acknowledged the change afoot, the toothpaste was out of the tube. You can't beat it back with the blunt instrument of law.

You can't alienate your customer and expect him or her to remain loyal. What's more, it's the job of business to meet the needs of its customers, even if that means the business must change. That's capitalism.

Some people had a good guffaw over what they saw as the failure for Radiohead's recent "pay what you want" release on account of it didn't make the band ka-jillionaires. But it remains, as it began, a continuing experiment towards the interests of artst, business and "end user" on how this commerce must change. Hats off to Radiohead for thowing it out there.

Back in the day, my friend's Elton John collection encouraged me to buy my own. If she'd made me identical MP3s, I would've spent the money. However, I'd still shell out for Elton John concerts. Advertisements featuring Elton John songs catch my attention. I'll probably never see his Red Piano show in Vegas. And while I'm not much interested in any of his Disney soundtracks, I attended Elton John's charity garage sale.

Five years from now, we will see a new system of commerce take form. Record companies, TV stations and movie studios are not going to disappear. Artists, actors and musicians aren't going to perish for lack of monetary support.

How these relationships develop between agents, artists and "end users" will change. Not because of government oversight, but because habits will change and new markets will be built. Like all revolutions, it'll be a bloody one or a gradual change. Right now, the smart money's on bloody.



[/quote]