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...'"
Something I ran into yesterday on boingboing (Score:3, Interesting)
Enforce it to the letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I'm sure we could find violations by the RIAA and it's members and staff.
Can't touch this? It's discovery time.
Re:Learn how to summarise (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Learn how to summarise (Score:3, Interesting)
MP3s and the Audio Home Recording Act (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, DAT never took off and SCMS became a dead end. However, look at what the RIAA agreed to: you can make as many imperfect copies (for personal use) as you wanted. What is an MP3 except an imperfect digital copy?
Unfortunately, this almost certainly has no relevance to the MP3 debate because SCMS is specific to DAT. (If it did have relevance, I'm sure someone would have argued it by now.)
Re:That's not what it says (Score:1, Interesting)
Certainly people share CDs in the same house, or listen to the radio together.
If they were talking about sharing with random people on the Internet they would have a valid point.
If this is not considered legal use, then I don't see any reason to buy CDs anymore.
RIAA says: Your MTF is ours, resistance is futile (Score:2, Interesting)
What is interesting is if you consider the file structure for NTFS, the location of the file in the directory structure is determined by what is essentially metadata stored in the Master File Table (MTF). You can change the location of the mp3 file within the directory structure, without changing any portion of the mp3 file itself, by simply changing the metadata in the MTF. So in essence, the RIAA is arguing they have legal authority over BOTH the mp3 file AND the metadata contained in the MTF on your computer (which determines the location of the file in the directory structure). While I would consider that metadata private information, I can see why RIAA lawyers would have a hard-on for this case. This case seems to have the possibility to expand their power over individuals private information somewhat significantly... "your MTF is ours"
Sue Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah... you mean Steve Jobs will make a 15 minute reality distortion field speech to the jury and the lawsuit will be over? And one more thing - the precedent will be set that not only format shifting music or anything is fair use but also so is streaming the files to your family or your coworkers. We certainly wouldn't want THAT.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I buy pretty much everything direct now - from ultra obscure stuff like Richard Skeltons wonderful work: http://www.sustain-release.co.uk/ [sustain-release.co.uk] to mainstreamish things like Neubauten and (drum roll) Radiohead.
More bands should get with the program and opt out of the RIAA as well.
There is Music out there - the RIAA is not interested in music and it is not interested in its customers/victims
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, It might not be popular, or legal... but (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggest that you do this with all CDs from **AA backed artists. If you have more than 10 friends, great! Remember, if you get too big, there is more evidence of your backup process, and that is not so good.
No court can handle the workload if such backup processes were to be prosecuted under the DMCA. Not only that, but the police can't possibly afford to try to enforce it... and likely that they would not want to anyway. It is the type of infringement that is simply too costly for anyone to prosecute. That is the type of boycott that would allow you to "do something" yet not do without.
HINT: One CD worth of MP3's fits rather nicely on a cheap 1Gb thumb drive.
Let the bastards fight that... they'll learn.
In case you are still wondering, yes, I'm suggesting you do exactly the things that the **AA is saying cost them so much money now. what good is a boycott if it does not hurt the corporation that you are boycotting? Simply STOP buying their products. Well, drop their revenues by 90% anyway. Take away their funds to fight in court. I know that is perhaps not realistic, but it is a method that will work if enough people do it.
Since that would involve tons of people, and physical media, not online records, investigating it would cost billions in manpower resources. Well, okay, lots of money. The point is that it removes both their revenue AND their ability to track your use of their product. Simple enough... now all you need to do is find 10 friends.
Re:You're *just now* starting to boycott??? (Score:4, Interesting)
But I also believe downloading via torrent trackers is also very effective. The attacks of the RIAA against consumers has gone beyond the polite and has moved into a new arena requiring civil disobedience. The main thing is to deprive the record labels of your money, which they seem to believe is "their money" by divine right of kings.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I buy a piece of music, I want to be able to play it on any device I own. I want to be able to do this legally, so I buy a CD, copy it and then rip the tracks to MP3. I can now use the CD in my home HiFi, the copied disc in my car (which has a bad habit of damaging discs), and the MP3s on my portable player. I'm happy and they should be too, as I parted with hard cash for the CD. If they now insists that my actions are illegal, I might as well download the MP3s in the first place and burn them to CD for the car and HiFi.
Re:Learn how to summarise (Score:4, Interesting)
(a) actual copies or phonorecords were distributed
(b)to the public
(c)by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending....
Re:Fair Use and families. (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps there could be parallels for music licensing - one copy per household can be played in any/all rooms in the house and any/all portable battery-operated devices. Mains operated devices outside of the home would need a separate 'license'.
Re:They are losing money. (Score:3, Interesting)
Right on! There's a chapter in Alan Greenspan's new book where he bemoans the fact that the modern Board of Directors has been reduced to a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In times past the Board would take an active role in managing the company and looking out for the best interests of the shareholders. Today they are little more then a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In fact, most of them are appointed by the CEO and probably spend their off-hours playing golf and drinking beer with him.
He didn't see a solution for this though. And I'd like to think he's a fairly smart guy when it comes to economics.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I held shares in a company with a dying business model I'd probably be too stupid to sell. But assuming I woke up with a few brain cells one morning, I'd realise that the RIAA labels no longer have the monopoly (or duopoly or whatever) they once enjoyed and that if they weren't strong enough to face the tiny indie labels head-on, they're not strong enough to survive.
The majors should end their war on the internet, end their war on P2P and internet radio. Even though they won the war on internet radio in the US, there are lots of other places in the world. And no matter how many computer-free grandmas and mentally retarded twelve year old children they sue, P2P will not go away, especially since it is SO EASY to not get sued.
If you use Morpheus you can uncheck a box and you won''t automatically share your downloads. This is a good thing not only from a legal perspective, but from the viewpoint that the majors have radio and empty-v. Indies only have P2P. Seed your share folders with indie music!
If you want the top 40, just plug your radio into your computer and sample [kuro5hin.org] for a couple hours, and you can make MP3s from the whole damned top 40, free and legal. Well, I guess it's legal but even if it isn't there's no way they can catch you, and no way to stop you short of taking their stuff off the air.
I have MP3s I made from cassettes I recorded off the radio years ago. When I have company over people kind of do a brain fart when the MP3 comes to a part of the song where the tape got ate.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure what he wants them to see is that their accelerating sales declines are because of all this nonsense, not in spite of it. The conventional wisdom right now is that these lawsuits are doing all that can be done to staunch the tide of piracy and prop up sales in a difficult market... I think the reality is the industry is doing more damage to itself with these types of statements and the lawsuits that they go along with than piracy ever did.
People are calling for a boycott... I think a boycott is already in force, if you look at the sales numbers. A lot of people don't buy nearly as much music as they used to, and the declines are growing every year. (Downloads aren't rising nearly fast enough to make up for lost CD sales.) This despite the lawsuits, and the fact that even the RIAA has said that they've stemmed the rising tide of piracy.
You can argue over the reasons for that, and I agree there are probably many reasons, but I don't think it can be disputed that the RIAA's war on its own consumers has tarnished the music industry's image among the public. I don't think anybody says "I'm not buying this CD because the music industry is suing people!" but I think it's in the back of their mind all the time that this industry is at best shady and at worst evil, and so major label music is not going to automatically be put at the top of their internal wish lists. Also, it only takes 10% of people to stop buying music for sales to drop 10% (or more, depending on what types of buyers they were), and I'm sure that this campaign against common sense has turned off more than 10% of the industry's heaviest consumers.
It would be nice if the companies themselves - ie. the investors, which are the money behind everything - would finally recognize this.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Recording companies that contract their artists for dsitribution and marketing contracts no longer need to sell directly to me. If the band is good, it will get radio play (on air, internet, sattelite, or other medium). I'll hear of the band through the broadcast, word of mouth, or website associated with other popular bands. The grass roots marketing process does work, and bands with or without marketing agents get exposure.
I don't need an expansive retail outlet, warehousing system, distribution chain, and millions of dollars in advertising wasted that could all go directly to the artist instead (or lower the cost of music).
For now, the popular music is free (LEGALLY!) if you know how to get it. The rest, if you really like the artist and want to contribute funding to them directly, contact them! Check out their myspace page or whatever you can find and ask to purchase their tunes directly. Have them set up a paypal store. they don't actually have to send you a copy electronically, they just have to sell you a "listening licence." a piece of paper granting you fair use of their collective works. You can get the copy of the work from anywhere, even through illegal distribution if you like, but then having a copy is perfectly legal. I'm sure the bands out there can afford to hire a few folks to make this happen for you at $.50 per song and still make 3-5 times what they get from the RIAA and their marketing company. You save more money, they make more money, and the RIAA gets fucked. It's a win, win, win.
As far as broadcast music... Once it's gone out over the air, that broadcast is public domain. Provided you were in the listening area, you could have heard it, and thus you could legally record it for personal use. Is it illegal to trade copywritten material if that material was obtained legally, and is traded with someone else who could have done the same? Selling it would be illegal, but a direct trade or gifting of the files is not a profit action, and thus protected by law. We're just waiting for someone to challenge that in court.
Re:Fair use!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought I was the only person who had done that. Sometimes it can be tough to listen to something and then not be able to buy it, but then I think about all the cool stuff that I never would have heard if was just pirating major label stuff all the time. Emusic.com has been quite helpful, being cheap, DRM-free, and devoid of the 'big 4'. I've also found some stuff on archive.org that was cool, though mostly in weird electonic genres like glitch. The thing that took me the most by surprise was how hostile my friends tended to be to the idea. I've tried hard not to be the guy going around talking about how he only listens to 'indie' music, but sometimes people get angry anyway. For instance, the following conversation has taken place in my car more than once:
Friend: This is pretty cool, it sounds kind of like the Katamari Damacy soundtrack, who is it?
Me: 'Bishop Whitney' by Beak.
Friend: Beak? Who's that?
Me: Eh, some random guy I found at archive.org, free download.
Friend: What the fuck, man, why don't you listen to normal music?
Me: I thought you said it sounded good.
Friend: Yeah, I guess, but, I dunno man, why do you have to do this crap?
Me: What crap?
Friend: This thing where you're all like, not listening to anything normal, and you have to go find all this weird indie stuff and act like it's all great.
Me: I never said it was the best thing in the world, I just liked it. I'm not forcing anyone to listen to the same bands, or bragging about how much better I am because I 'discovered' something, or trying to make Kanye West albums illegal. This album sounded good, and it was free, and legal, so now it's on my stereo. What's wrong with that? Look, I have some old Green Day on here, would you rather listen to that?
Friend: No, just, forget it man, forget it. *sighs*
It's been a real trip. Fuck the big four labels. I'm tired of 'fighting' them. I'm just going to ignore them, because I don't need them.