RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized 668
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an Arizona case against a defendant who has no legal representation, Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA is now arguing — contrary to its lawyers' statements to the United States Supreme Court in 2005 MGM v. Grokster — that the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. At page 15 of its brief (PDF) it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"
Fair use!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This case appears to be an absolutely clear fair use case. This individual, like hundreds of thousands of others *purchase* music from legal sources and while I just spent the last ten minutes typing out an explanation for why this may be the case, I have realized that we've all heard this ad nauseum. What is it going to take for the shareholders of all these companies to stand up and say enough? What is it going to take before all consumers simply say "enough of this hassle, no more music purchases?" What is it going to take before these people wake up, realize that they need to stop treating their paying customers like criminals? When are they going to realize that rather than litigate against the pirates, they should simply realize that they should compete against them by offering great service for reasonable prices and get rid of all the DRM? There is a reason that music sales are dropping (actually a dozen or so), but if the RIAA and their associated represented companies simply started going back to basics, finding and promoting good talent (there is lots out there) rather than promoting the engineered bands, or what they think should be popular, they could go back to making money. Look, Long Tail economics gives them everything they need to start making more money, even from music in the public domain. Hey, I'd buy music if made available from a huge variety of artists that are currently out of print or have entered the public domain, but are no longer available.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd just like to see some alternate distribution mechanisms. The old mp3.com was great, I haven't tried it recently. cdbaby.com feeds into itunes which is great, and seems to be a low barrier to entry as far as physical+online distribution. It's the labels which put money behind promotions in record stores, and presumably, online venues such as itunes.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the RIAA behavior should be discussed anymore. Let's start doing something substantial (at least those that think RIAA is acting out of order). Actually there probably are loads activity groups out there that are already doing this, maybe they need (even) more support.
Fair enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a step beyond claiming that "making available" is piracy, which is a step beyond what most of us accept as piracy.
I do agree with your assessment, though. Nothing is helped by intellectual dishonesty and exaggeration.
You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's been +5 years since I bought a CD from a major label, and I know there are many others here who have voted *without* their wallets like I have. (Are you listening, mafIAA??)
I'm surprised that someone with as much exposure to the horror stories as you must have gotten in all your years of
Don't buy things from the music mongers! Support independent artists!!!
Re:unauthorized != illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
So the original summary is misleading: The RIAA did not argue that MP3s from CDs are illegal.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharing MP3s with Kazaa is fair use? That seems rather unlikely.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm, maybe when their shares stop making them money? People will invest in all sorts of things and ignore moral/ethical dilemmas, as long as it is making them money. Such is human greed and capitalism.
That'll only happen when Joe Public who buys the random, mass-produced crap that makes it into the charts feels he is affected. For the moment it is only the comparative minority who rip and share MP3s en-mass who really worry, and those geeks who keep track of the news who can see where it will end up.
Maybe when their business model finally bites the dust and some other group using online distribution without DRM is still going strong. Even then it is only a maybe.
Again, it'll cost money to do that. They can sue lots of people for tens of thousands or they can spend millions restructuring and working on a better model. Which one seems better in the corporate world?
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious?
Re:Learn how to summarise (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the RIAA are going to claim this and that, but when it comes down to it this dude will be found to have distributed music via Kazaa.
The summary is just more dishonesty by these stupid slashdot people.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." Voltaire
The .mp3s are in a *shared* folder. (Score:3, Insightful)
"...Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder..."
and
"...Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
I don't think personal use is the issue - it is the fact he made the recordings potentially public is the problem. I imagine the RIAA will get him on 'unauthorized distribution'.
The guy who did this is pretty stupid - what kind of reaction from the RIAA does he expect?
Pretty much all my music is in some kind of digital form, when I rip cds I certainly don't store them in a sharable folder - it's for my private use.
Then again this is the RIAA this person will probably suffer a ridiculous fine (or jail term?) that can potentially ruin his life (it's only music for christ's sake).
If I knock over someone with my car and kill them I would probably be fined £1000 and incur points on my driving license (or a ban for 12 months).
(Hey it's the old if "it was a car" analogy).
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
up next (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder why they haven't gone after libraries for "making available" yet...
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if you're gonna pirate, don't try and justify it with "oh, I'm doing it for the good of the country" or "well, the riaa sucks". At least admit to yourself that you're doing it because you're a cheap bastard.
I pirate, and its not because I hate the riaa, its because I'm cheap and can't afford to buy all the music I like.
kdawson strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Clear cut case (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I don't like this:
RIAA - If you stop feeding them they'll go away (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA gets its funding from the big labels in addition to these racketeering activities. As SCO has so thoroughly demonstrated, suing your customers is not a sustainable business plan. Cut off the other source of revenue: Music Sales, and they will eventually wither away and die. I am not condoning piracy here, and as a musician its hard to advocate intentionally killing off an industry I've spent a significant part of my life studying, but it simply must be done. It is the only way to rid the planet of what has become a blight on the world. Only then can something better rise up to fill the void. It is a sacrifice we all have to make for the greater good.
Theres a theme here: Stop Buying Music from RIAA Members.
labeling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should ask for a labeling requirement on all music (CD, on-line, radio) indicating whether the music comes from an RIAA artist or not.
Re:Fair enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copying to perform unauthorized distribution to random P2P nodes is not.
Whether it's fair use or not is in a way retroactive - you can't immidiately after the copy is made determine if it's legal or not, it depends on how you use that copy. At the same time, copyright law applies at the time of the copy. So technically if you intended it to be legal, it is legal even if you use it for something that's not. You can't exactly flaunt that though. The RIIA can easily argue that you ripped it for the purpose of putting it in your kazaa folder though, which just isn't fair use.
Re:Fair enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
and not:
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed
So they're not saying "Here they are saying that ripping a CD to MP3 format is the creation of an 'unauthorized copy'."
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people are addicted to their music, and can't live without their occasional fix. Thus, they'll buy music from the RIAA regardless of how much they hate them. To such people, getting a fix is much more important than making a point about the RIAA.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Prisoner's dilemma? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mechanics are just like in the prisoner's dilemma, really. With two people it's just "am I sure that my pal will do the same? or am I shooting myself in the foot?" Which boils down to how well you know him, I guess. There have been plenty of people who've been surprised there. With millions of people, it becomes "am I sure that all these millions will do the same? or am I just the idiot depriving himself of something, while everyone else doesn't give a damn?" Since you don't know them all, the latter becomes the far safer bet. And you know they'll think the same.
Briefly, if your rights depend on some tens of millions of other people doing the same thing, you've already lost them. Isolated individuals are insecure, weak, vulnerable, easy prey for FUD, etc.
No, what most of the world discovered a long time ago, is that you need some laws if you're against something.
E.g., if you want, say, the factories to stop polluting rivers, you need a law that forbids that or at least gives them a cost feedback for it. Because just hoping that everyone will suddenly say "well, I'll refuse to work for anyone who pollutes, or buy their products" just doesn't work.
Same here. If you don't like copyright law and the loopholes/privileges/whatever it gives to the RIAA, then have that law changed. Just hoping that millions of independent people will individually decide to boycott them, never worked, never will.
Or at the very least, get organized. If you want people to stand up for something, at personal cost or inconvenience, see the prisoner's dilemma again: they have to be sure that everyone else, or at least enough others, do the same thing. Plus, it gets you taken more seriously by the other side you're negotiating with. A group of a million or two sworn to never buy CDs until fair use is respected, has some bargaining power. Isolated individuals whining separately do not.
The last paragraph is why unions appeared. Much as that seems to be a swearword for many nerds.
Or before them such things as the guilds or medieval communes. Isolated burghers were no match for the noble of the land. A whole city standing together for their rights, well, now that got taken a bit more seriously.
Re:Learn how to summarise (Score:3, Insightful)
When you get sued/accused by the copyright holder, you reply "Yea I did, but it's Fair Use."
So really, the issue of creating MP3s is entirely separate from distributing them.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a neat little racket they've got going, and just a few of the many reasons the industry wants to abandon the CD.
This is an issue that deserves some thought. Fair use isn't the only pro-consumer doctrine that can be routed around by some combination of legislation and technology (I'm looking at you, DVD Forum).
Re:unauthorized != illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:up next (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright law prohibits distributing unauthorised copies, not lending, leasing, selling, or giving away works in their original published form. Libraries are not therefore doing anything illegal by lending copyrighted works on their original media, something you or I can also do if we choose without contravening any copyright laws (we can also sell or give away our original copies, although the music industry in particular would love to make that practice illegal. Unfortunately for them, other types of copyright holders also have powerful political lobby groups, and prohibiting resale of 2nd. hand works would have a dramatic negative impact on their bottom line).
Misdirection by the lawyer (and you all bought it) (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Defendant copies files (the copying).
2. Defendant put the files in a shared folder on his HDD.
3. 2. invalidates his fair-use right to 1.
Note that this argument does NOT require that he actually distributed any of the songs, or even connect to another computer.
You get rulings on this sort of stuff with a defendant that does NOT have a lawyer, then cite the precedent for those who do.
Sweet, sweet revenge.. (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, they make it really easy: Universal Music Group and Warner both have 'official' channels. All you need to do is subscribe to those channels, and they'll tell you every time they post a new video that they're promoting. Here are the links:
Warner: http://www.youtube.com/user/warnerbrosrecords [youtube.com]
Universal Music Group: http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup [youtube.com]
Also, if you go to the videos link from their main label page, you can often catch new videos that they're trying to release quietly without much fanfare, since they know they probably won't do very well.
Re:Intentional posting of misleading headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are losing money. (Score:3, Insightful)
it's just business (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that the RIAA is correct in the following way: it costs just as much to make a CD with a pop band as it does one with a "better" band. In both cases, they pay the band, pay for studio time, and the engineers who produce the final product. They then pay for the CDs to get printed, distribution of said CDs, and for advertising of their new releases. Even a fool can see that it's much better to spend, say, a million dollars on some drivel that tons of high school cheerleaders will buy, than to spend a million on something eight bloggers will order from their mothers' basement PCs. You see, the cheerleaders will also buy the clothes, shoes, and other associated crap.
Watch one episode of Run's House and see how Russell Simmons and Rev Run make money. You'll see that they really can set the tone of what is "cool" in this country, and they do. They don't argue about being artsy-fartsy, giving small groups a big chance, or DRM! They just make money. There's no moral issue there...it's just business.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.....
I thought I was the only one who, since the Internet made finding independent artists easier, actually enjoyed finding such hidden gems of music. After discovering indie bands, I learned it was cool to listen to something that most others don't know about. There are plenty of people at work that ask me who I'm listening to at any given time. By now, they can guess it's an "indie" artist. Most say it sounds good. I do my best to let them know where to find such music in their favorite genre.
Although a couple long time favorite artists of mine are published only on RIAA labels, I generally gave up on everything but independents. At the risk of a mild superiority complex, I feel great knowing I'm not an RIAA music buying drone.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy CDs; not necessarly because of what the RIAA does (although it is scummy), its just I find them overpriced. I get get a decent DVD for $15. 90 minutes of video and sound. $0.17 / minute. A cd or track? $1 per track, or $0.33 / minute. For something I'll usually use as background noise and not even pay 100% attention to.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, in their perfect world, they sell you the same content over and over again, each time in a different format. The artist gets a decreasing revenue, the labels get a greater revenue, and the consumer gets screwed. This has been how they've operated since their inception. They're simply trying to take the Old Way Of Doing Business(tm) and force it onto a fundamentally different digitally-connected world.
The reality is, the labels are the walking dead and they know it. Their sole reason for existence is music distribution. The Internet obsoletes that need. Every executive at every label is desperately trying to stave off the inevitable destruction of their business model just long enough for them to retire or shift the problem to someone else. When anyone, anywhere can effectively distribute their work -- be it books, songs, videos, or something else -- globally with minimal costs, the need for any kind of "distributor" is removed. The labels know this, but they're going to pretend not to know just as long as they can.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing Apple Would Be Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, when you start suing the small fish directly with devastating results, the other small fish are far more likely to play by your rules to keep themselves safe. Fear is much more powerful tool than severely reducing the available supply. People will always find ways around supply problems by going through black market channels to get it. As long as there is a demand, there will always be illegitimate suppliers.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:2, Insightful)
A true RIAA boycott would include most TV and Movies.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not as simple as that.
Bands who don't take the oppertunity when and if they are given it to sign up with a major label (who will be a member of the RIAA and similar organisations in other countries) are likely to remain obscure forever unless they are really lucky.
and once a band has signed they can't just opt out, they have to fulfil thier side of the contrace.
so the band who is offered a record contract has two choices, stay small and obscure and not make much money or become big and famous, still not make much money off record sales but at least have the possibility of other avenues for making money (tours, merchandising etc).
The way to make real money as a band is to go through a record contract, fulfill all the obligations and come out the other side but very few bands manage this.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your first statement, I agree with. You second, I do not agree with.
The reason for the labels existence is not distribution. It is promotion. The labels provide other (way overpriced) services, but the thing they do best is promotion. They take relatively-unknown groups, and make them the next hot national property.
The other things the labels do, the artists can do themselves, or contract directly for better prices, but then they would have to pay immediately, and not out of possible future revenue, which the labels allow (for those already-mentioned grossly-inflated prices). The labels provide recording studio time, sound engineers, graphic artists for album art, and distribution.
All of that the artists can do themselves, or arrange themselves.
But the primary thing the labels do is promotion. That means radio airplay. That means music videos and getting them out and seen on tv. That means other related... stuff.
And that is harder to replace. If you want to become extremely well known, and have best-selling albums, you go with a top-4 label. Of course, the trade-off there is that you won't make any money off your first 3 albums, but you label will make plenty. After about the third album, if you last that long, you might start seeing some decent money.
Or you stay independent or with a smaller label, and maybe make reasonable money for doing a lot of work yourself.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
An example (theoretical, of course):
You are completely addicted to the ENTIRE top 100 billboard list - mostly if not entirely RIAA. You then search usenet or Kazaa or torrent for "Billboard". 20 minutes later, you have the entire list and the RIAA has nothing.
Meanwhile, you happen across a song by, say, Mirah [krecs.com] and you are enchanted by her little pixie voice. So you head over to her site and buy the CD... maybe catch her the next time she's in town.
Brave new world, no? Of course, you could just infringe on everyone's copyrights if you really want - I doubt that I'll see you in hell. Isn't the separation between illegal and immoral fun?
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. However that happens to a *tiny* fraction of a percentage of all bands who try.
If you care about music then make music - if you are trying to get rich then by all means gamble with the RIAA and their friends. I can however think of other ways of getting rich that have a much greater chance of success.
The fact is though that the music industries days are numbered as it stands. It will *have* to find an alternative - you cannot support an industry by criminalizing your customers - it is *never* going to work. Well actually that is not entirely true. The government makes it work with 'tax'. However I can't see an arbitrary non government industry managing to do it.
So - what gives? I guess just like in the early days of radio and recorded music someone is going to have to find a new model. A new model to help people find music they like, a new model to pay musicians to make music. The upside is the cost of entry is going to be low - distribution is no longer an issue (even globally) , servers and bandwidth are pretty cheap. The downside is that the vast majority of your customers are used to paying *nothing* for music so they are going to need educating.
Is the music industry as it currently stands going to deliver this new model? - not in a million years.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean it's not a fair use to rip music. It just means they're more worried about you ripping CDs.
Fair use struck down? (Score:3, Insightful)
But i hadnt heard that fair use was finally struck down ( it will be, just give it time ), and i dont remember any contract that specifically stated i cant rip for personal use.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? Maybe it should be!
I say that the value of a creative work is precisely it's cultural value, and that that value is maximized when it is in the Public Domain. What makes you think otherwise?
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the idea of the boycott as a means of consumer control, but trying to boycott the Big Four is just short of saying that you will no longer be listening to music, record or otherwise (and this is coming from some one with an extensive collections of independent unsigned musics and a promoter of such musicians).
Re:Fair use!!! Splintered Fiddle Candidates... (Score:4, Insightful)
Up your ass with a splintered fiddle you riaa bastards and bitches...
Disks WEAR OUT. You think I'm going to keep replacing player-scratched media? I have finally, for the first time in my life, bought an MP3 player in Nov 07, and I have years worth of CDs I PURCHASED, and some from the net, but I don't have any habit of burning and selling or even giving away to more than 3 people EVER.
Call it space-shifting if you want, but it helps reduce wear and tear on my computer when I listen to 25 hours of music over the weekend. My CDs are in MY possession, and you're lucky I paid for THOSE, considering they are 5-25 times more expensive than they OUGHT to be. Worse, the MUSICIANS are being screwed (not just because they stupidly signed with a label that screws them in contract but) because you REFUSE to reward them for what they are worth. If I could figure out HOW to directly compensate them, I would, and just bypass your asses.
Everyones gone off on a tangent here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Another dirty ploy by the RIAA to cloud up things enough to help guarantee them a win because of the confusion of terms to the jury. Or; at least that is what they are hoping for.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:2, Insightful)
If I can listen to it I can copy it.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in Canada.