Slashdot Log In
RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Dec 30, 2007 08:31 AM
from the because-we-needed-another-reason-to-be-cranky-at-them dept.
from the because-we-needed-another-reason-to-be-cranky-at-them dept.
mrneutron2003 writes "With this past week's announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The RIAA, would begin changing its tune. Instead, they are pressing on in their campaign against consumers by suing individuals who merely rip CDs they've purchased legally. '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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Warner Music Group Drops DRM for Amazon 167 comments
SirLurksAlot sends us to Ars Technica for an article about the Warner Music Group's decision to allow DRM-free music downloads through Amazon. This reversal of Warner's former position has been underway for some time, and it boosts the number of DRM-free songs available from Amazon to 2.9 million. Quoting:
"Warner's announcement says nothing about offering its content through other services such as iTunes, and represents the music industry's attempt to make life a bit more difficult for Apple after all the years in which the company held the keys to music's digital kingdom.
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized' 175 comments
An Engadget article notes that the Washington Post RIAA article we discussed earlier today may have been poorly phrased. The original article implied that the Association's suit stemmed from the music ripping. As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies' ... "something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
2 words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 words (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, fair use of the end music still applies, but you cant legally get your music into that state due to having to 'break' the copy protection first. Is one reason we are being forced to digital TV in a year or so.
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
That's not funny -- it's sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's not funny -- it's sad (Score:5, Informative)
"In Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA claims that "[once] Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=953494 [avsforum.com]
Odd how both the summary and the Washington Post article skip that particular fact.
Parent
Go directly to jail (Score:5, Funny)
You just broadly communicated a method to circumvent a copy protection device.
Parent
Re:Go directly to jail (Score:4, Informative)
I think something completely different is what is usually mentioned. I think the big change is simply driven by going from a market dictated market to a consumer dictated market. In other words, we don't want it your way, we want it our way. At whatever pricepoint we think is reasonable (probably somewhere around $0.10 per song) and in whatever format we want.
As long as that doesn't happen piracy is here to stay, and when it does happen you have to hope that the piracy infrastructure is not so well entrenched that people will not even bother to switch to legal stuff anymore. The longer the wait the larger the chance that the music industry will not survive.
If a significantly large portion of the population commits a crime (say going 20 km above the speed limit) it technically still is a crime but the actual enforcement is no longer feasible. That only works when the percentage of criminals to honest citizens is small enough to warrant enforcement. Past that point the judicial system simply breaks down.
Parent
One word (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:One word (Score:4, Informative)
But, if you purchase a CD, any one with the official Phillips CD logo on it, then you are guaranteed to have no copy protection on it. Phillips has been quite good about requiring that any disc with that logo on it be played on any CD player that has ever been made, which effectively prevents DRM systems from being put on to a licensed disc.
Phillips in on record as saying that placing their CD logo onto any disc which doesn't conform to their standards represents trademark infringement. And realistically, that is the way that it should be, kind of a reminder that IP can also be beneficial to consumers as well.
On a side note, with every single story along these lines, and the RIAA press release that goes along with, I am more and more glad that I don't do business with them. If they want my money to fund their crusade, they're going to have to do so responsibly and in conformance with the laws of the US. All of them, including the ones that indicate that you can't bring known fraudulent cases to court.
Parent
Re:One word (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets hope they press charges. It might get this issue sorted out sooner rather than later.
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't want it sorted out. They know they'd lose. The want the confusion and penny ante change they collect because their other income models are evaporating and extortion is all they have left.
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you hate America?
Clearly he didn't "rip" the music. He "liberated" all those poor oppressed bits from the tyrrany of an undemocratically-elected plastic disc.
Parent
Gordon Brown (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1582428.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
But then later removed it when he was informed it was illegal.
(In Britain there is no concept of "Fair Use" in copyright law)
Parent
Re:2 words (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Told a so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mandatory pay-per-play is their next move. Then criminalization. Once that is complete, the industry will collapse and they will be gone and out of our hair.
Microsoft facilitating? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure there are a myriad of other examples of hardware and software manufacturer implementing features which expedite the 'illegal' copying of music and other software. I suppose what makes the Sony instance more interesting is that Sony operate a music label as well and are presumably part of the RIAA mafia.
Parent
Still pleasantly surprised by human nature (Score:5, Funny)
What always surprises me a little is that none of the people they're suing have opened fire in the RIAA offices. While that would be horrible and I can't condone the taking of innocent lives (such as the Pepsi machine refill guy who happens to be there at that moment), I'm still kind of amazed that nobody's done it.
Seriously, though, how do those cretins sleep at night? Even if they don't care about the lives they've destroyed, surely they care about the idea that someone might want revenge. I could imagine someone who loses their house because they ripped a CD might feel like they don't have a lot more to lose.
Death spiral (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA Layers have completely lost it (Score:4, Informative)
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.
This is so ridiculous that it would be funny, but I fear they are completely serious about it...
Farewell, Music Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
Please Die Already (Score:3, Insightful)
Business has been reduced to spreadsheets with no touch with what the actual core business is. Sure, just outsource the core business and let the patents and lawsuits roll!
How was he caught? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How was he caught? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:How was he caught? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you should RTFA. The argument could have been made that distributing, or merely making available for distribution, was the infringement. But they are in fact saying that merely copying the music to the computer is (an) infringement.
And don't think the Audio Home Recording Act [wikipedia.org], especially its section 1008 provision, will necessarily protect you. That law specifies devices that contain the Serial Copy Management System [wikipedia.org], and media (where you store the music) that requires royalty payments (e.g. some
Apple has a page dedicated to this crime (Score:5, Funny)
MS and Apple to the rescue (Score:5, Interesting)
dupe: unauthorized != illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
Good luck with that one. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some things that are just never gonna happen - there's a critical mass of progress or just practicality that prevents it. If the "RIAA" thinks people will go back to carrying around hundreds of 5 inch plastic discs (yes, I typed "discs" - lets check that again - yes phew
This is a little bit like having to run software from the installation disc all the time. The software industry more or less solved this, with other means of licensing other than ownership of the physical delivery media and allowed users to "copy" the software to their PC's internal storage. Yes there is theft, but software vendors know that if they insisted on having the install disc present for every piece of software in your PC, users would vote with their feet and go use something else (plus of course, everyone would just mount ISO images of the discs, or if that wouldn't work, a solution would be found - that's the power of a connected and talented user base).
So if these guys think I'm going to have the install-disc in the stereo for whatever music I'm listening to, I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
Consider car audio - in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a hand-held telephone whilst operating a vehicle (even if you're stopped at the lights etc). And yet, it's still OK for us to eject a CD, fumble around for a new CD, open the box (all with one hand) and insert it into the player. Now, as anyone who has done this will know, after 2 days, none of the CD boxes will contain the music advertised on the outside - so to play a specific album, you could be fumbling about for quite a while, and at the same time, you must control your vehicle at road speeds, amongst other traffic etc. etc. Madness. Auto changers did a bit to address this, but I can guarantee you most people will take the same 6 CDs out of the car when they sell it, that they put in the day they bought it. It's just too much of a planned activity to firtle around in the boot of your car with those CD magazines, and by the time you think "hmm must change the discs" you're cruising down the M6, so you never do it.
The problem was neatly solved by having a big fat SD card sticking out of your dashboard with all the music you ever wanted at a quality that exceeds that of the acoustic environment that is your car. (Unless you drive the Albert Hall, in which case, you're on your own). This is so good in fact, I never want to see a CD again after I've installed the music on it.
The RIAA's primary objective is "to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists". All very laudable, but I wonder if they consult these artists before they issue these proclamations? After all, sales of billions with some loss due to illegal re-production has to be better financially, than sales of only thousands with no loss. Surely? Would the artists prefer to remain penniless, safe in the knowledge that no one has illegally copied their material?
The RIAA needs to find a better solution if they want to attain any credibility: "go back to a time when this wasn't an issue" is not acceptable. They may as well suggest we all go back to the horse and cart to solve vehicle emissions, or that banks use ledger books and quill pens to avoid all those troublesome data centre issues. Technically, and qualitatively all these things would still work, but none of em are gonna happen, any time this side of a global apocalypse anyway (and maybe not on the other side either - there maybe a shortage of horses...).
Now, excuse me while I go break some laws with my Squeezebox.
Cheers,
Scoot.
Re:Good luck with that one. (Score:4, Insightful)
The law is completely out of step with reality, nobody in their right mind considers it morally wrong either. In fact it has only served to damage the industry. In for a penny in for a pound as the saying goes. As it is just as illegal to copy my own CD's onto my MP3 player as download them for free off the internet, I might as well download them for free.
Parent
I've got the solution (Score:4, Funny)
These signs should preferably be placed close to the cash register to turn back customers who may have missed them elsewhere in the store and be unwittingly about to buy a CD for anything other than their grandfather's dust collecting CD player.
This simple solution should deter this heineious crime of people enjoying the music they buy in CD format, and should also (magically, against all expectations) boost CD sales.
Seeing as Appple's iTunes software supports loading of your CDs onto your iPod or (god forbid!) playing them on your PC, it's obvious that the RIAA should also ligitate against Apple to cripple ITunes functionality, and stop people from buying CDs for these nefarious listening purposes, and this should also magically boost CD sales.
from the RIAA website (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't this directly contradict what this lawsuit is about?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Doesn't this directly contradict what this lawsuit is about?"
Actually, no. As I understand it, the RIAA is going after him (via a settlement offer... no lawsuit yet) because they believe he is sharing music via P2P.
The key phrase is "unauthorized copies" and how its meaning can change independently of the act of ripping it. Here's how the RIAA sees it:
Question for Ray Beckerman (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Beckerman,
Since you're quoted in the article I assume you're familiar with the case. The phrase "suing individuals who merely rip CDs" sounds a bit off... in particular, that word "merely." My guess is that he was targeted as a file sharer, and thus he was not "merely" ripping CDs -- rather, the RIAA alleges that he's sharing music which he happened to rip from his personal collection. Am I correct?
Unless the RIAA is asking for additional damages for ripping CDs (on top of the settlement money they're after, or the damages they might seek if it goes to trial), the headline "RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs" seems disingenuous. Legally speaking, if he petted his dog that day, it 's the equivalent of stating "RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Pet Their Dogs." Of course, if the RIAA will be seeking additional damages for the act of ripping (on top of making available), then I'm wrong, but I'm not sure this is the case.
Can you clarify? Do you agree that the write-up and/or the article is misleading in its omission?
Re:What should we make illegal next, breathing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
Ill be watching you
Parent
Re:What should we make illegal next, breathing? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What should we make illegal next, breathing? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:When this is going to stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Old cassettes? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:What do you pay for when you buy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Transferred ownership would imply that the music wouldn't belong to the record company anymore. That would be a very bad deal to the record company, so instead, what they sell you is a license to listen to that music. Once you buy a CD, you get to listen to a piece of music as many times as you want.
But you cannot distribute copies of it- the music is protected by copyright law. Now, the record companies argue that making a copy for personal use implies you are not listening to the licensed material anymore- instead, you are listening to a copy (never mind that bits *must* be copied around before the audio hits the speaker).
A case can be made for the fact that an MP3 isn't the licensed material: you can do a bitwise comparison and find out that what you are listening to isn't what you licensed.
This is where the fun starts. Rights and obligations most always come in pairs. If you have the obligation to send your kids to school, this implies the right to have schools built to send your kid to (and building the schools is then in turn the obligation of the state).
So if I cannot make copies for personal use but paid for a license to listen to music represented by a certain pattern of bits, I will have an unalienable right to listen to that music, represented by that *exact* pattern of bits. This implies the obligation of the record company to indefinitely provide me with that exact pattern of bits forever and ever and ever (unless otherwise stated in a written license agreement).
This means that whenever I accidentally scratch the CD that I bought so that it isn't bit-for-bit readable anymore, I'm entitled to a replacement- this obligation arises on RIAA's side of the deal. I guess that is where my microwave oven and sledge hammer come into the picture, and that is where the fun *really* starts.
Parent
License to read? How copyright law truly operates (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anyone out there that imagines there is such a thing as a "license to read"? That when you buy a book what you're actually buying a "license to read"?
I find it weird how this "license to listen" meme keeps cropping up from so many different people. The concept "license to listen" does not exist in US law. Nor does it exist anywhere in the law of any country of the Berne copyright convention... meaning pretty much every country on earth.
Transferred ownership would imply that the music wouldn't belong to the record company anymore.
Correct. According to US law and pretty well every country on earth, that particular copy doen't belong to the record company anymore.
When you buy a CD, you are in fact buying the physical medium. You are buying a physical medium that happens to have music encoded on it. By law you become the owner of that physical object, and by law you become the owner of the particular copy of the music that happens to be on that medium.
When you buy a book or a CD or whatnot, you do not receive any license at all. Because you do not need any license at all.
You do not need a license to read a book. You own the book you bought, you have every right to read it. And even if you don't own the book, it doesn't matter. If you can see the text in someone else's book, you are perfectly free to read that too. The same goes for records and CDs and videos and whatnot. You do not need any sort of license to play something you bought. You have every right to drop your chunk of vinyl onto a record player or stick your videocassette into a VCR.
A further point is that the law explicitly states that you need no license whatsoever to install and run software. No, copyright law absolutely positively does not require you to have any sort of EULA to install and run software. EULAs are contract offers, and companies try to rely on a couple of other legal tricks to attempt (with varying degrees of success) to corner you into accepting an EULA. Legal mechanisms that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Those issues are therefore wandering off topic of copyright.
Copyright law explicitly itemizes six things it restricts, but for discussion they can pretty well be condensed down to just three different things. (1) Copying (2) Distribution and (3) Public Performance. Nothing outside those three categories is restricted by copyright law. You do not need any sort of license to do anything outside of those three things. You do not need a license to read a book, you do not need a license to play a CD, you do not need a license to chop up you videocassette set it on fire.
Copying, distribution, and public performance are restricted and potentially require licenses to do, however at this point copyright law gets very messy. There are all sorts of rules and exceptions. In some cases unlicensed unauthorized activities are not infringing. The prime example is in distribution. When you buy a book or whatnot, you own that particular copy and you have the distribution right of giving or selling that particular copy. The legal term is "Right of First Sale", and the legal language is that the copyright holder has "exhausted his distribution right" in that particular copy, used up and eliminated his distribution rights in that particular copy. There is also a vast range of copying activities that are unlicensed unauthorized and noninfringing. Some activities are explicitly noninfringing due to exceptions written into law, and (speaking of US law here) many more are protected Fair Use which would often be unconstitutional for copyright law to prohibit. Fair Use cannot be altered, diminished, or eliminated by passing a law. An law attempting to do so would be constitutionally NULL and VOID. Fair Use was established by the courts, and they did so on constitutional grounds. Fair Use was indeed written into US law in 1976, but the congressional record and the US court
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"About a third of the plastic it took to make a 12-inch LP, at double the price."
Interesting trivia: when CDs began to overtake LPs in the 1980s, LPs could be had for about $10 - $12. If I recall correctly, CDs were being sold for $16 - $18. Of course, that was all in 1988 dollars.
That twelve buck LP in 1988 would cost you about $21 today in 2007 dollars. If CDs were really double the price, we'd be paying $40 for them. The reality is that CDs are about $10 or $12 today. So, in constant dollars, the p
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent