Has RIAA Finally Crossed The Line?

[DaveSimmons]

Yep, if you rip and share the RIAA might object in court.

Otherwise, they have yet to go after anyone.

 

[Mermaidman]

This thread's title is misleading and the OP misrepresents the case. It's like Foxnews.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
This thread's title is misleading and the OP misrepresents the case. It's like Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, USA Today, LA Times, Associated Press, Reuters, and every other major news organization.

Fixed

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Sharing is the keyword here. If ripping a CD was illegal, the RIAA would make a hell lot more money going after Microsoft, Apple, RealNetworks, Ahead and the authors of hundreds of CD-ripping programs out there.

Hell, even Sony makes those (overpriced) digital network-enabled jukeboxes for the Home Audio market (as do several other vendors, including Mark Levinson IIRC).

 

[BlackTigers]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Sharing is the keyword here. If ripping a CD was illegal, the RIAA would make a hell lot more money going after Microsoft, Apple, RealNetworks, Ahead and the authors of hundreds of CD-ripping programs out there.

Give it time...

Give it time.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: Evadman
please let it go to court.

No kidding... I would love this to climb as high as the courts will allow it, even all the way up to the Supreme Court, if they'll hear the case. There needs to be a ruling on what really constitutes "stealing" versus fair use in this digital age. If the RIAA had it their way, everyone would buy a CD, and then would pay to download the music onto their computer. They would make us pay twice for the same good, just in different formats. Of course this makes sense to the RIAA because, in many cases, their members would have a double dip of the profits.

I will always buy CDs. I will never buy an album online in leiu of buying the CD. The reason is that I want the hard, physical copy of the media. I don't want to worry about losing my music collection to a hard drive failure. I have a digital copy of my entire music collection, and if I take a CD out of the house, I almost always take a burn rather than the original copy. Am I violating the law according to the RIAA? Personally, I don't think that I am.

What about a case where a man and his wife share a CD collection. They both love a certain set of artists that they listen to in their car CD players and on their iPods while working out. Would this couple have to buy 4 copies of this music?!? One CD for each car and one MP3 for each iPod? That sounds absurd to me.

R

Your hard physical copy exists in the same form on your hard drive. A hard drive failure can be equated to a scratched CD. It really doesn't matter which format you buy your music in.

 

[Jeff7]

Every time I play a CD, I am creating an analog copy of it ("stored" in vibrations in the air), which is then stored, using lossy compression, within my own mind. Oops, I guess I made two accidental copies of it. RIAA, please sue me.

Originally posted by: Evadman

<-- Rips his own MP3's. Every CD he ever bought, which is a lot. Hell, I don't even know where most of the CD's are any more. You don't need them once in MP3 format anyway.

Bring it on RIAA!

In other news, the Anandtech forums will soon be looking for a new senior moderator. Rumor was that the previous one was drug out of his home and killed in the night, with the letters "RIAA" left branded into his forehead.
Oh wait, maybe they'll try to sue me for libel now.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: mugs
Wait... what? They're all asking how the RIAA found out he had ripped his purchased CD to his computer. And your answer is.... ______?

MediaSentry

Yeah, exactly. Because he was sharing the files on a P2P service. How about you change your OP which is obviously inaccurate?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
This thread's title is misleading and the OP misrepresents the case. It's like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, USA Today, LA Times, Associated Press, Reuters, and every other major news organization except Fox News.

Fixed

Fixed

 

[KingGheedora]

I wonder if the RIAA lawyers hate themselves for representing total BS.

 

[frostedflakes]

They're lawyers, do you really think they have ethics?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Every time I play a CD, I am creating an analog copy of it ("stored" in vibrations in the air), which is then stored, using lossy compression, within my own mind. Oops, I guess I made two accidental copies of it. RIAA, please sue me.

no, a copy is something affixed in a medium. the transitory vibrations in air are not affixing, and your brain isn't a medium.

 

[Lonyo]

Doesn't the DRM used on music from places like the iTunes store allow you to burn downloaded tracks to a CD?
If that is deemed acceptable, then why wouldn't the reverse also be acceptable?

 

[BabaBooey]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
RIAA needs to be shut down.

X 2

 

[pontifex]

what do you mean "finally"?

 

[JEDIYoda]

misreopresentation of the truth in a court of law is also a crime.....

 

[waggy]

oh here i was all excited. seem sto be just another thief.



to bad. while i think pireating is wrong The RIAA is far worse. i keep hopeing someone shuts them down. thought maybe this would be the case that could do it.


for the record if the courts say ripping a copy to MP3 format is stealing i will continue to do so. the ruleing would not be a fair ruleing and more thenlikely one purchased.

 

[Bateluer]

Damn, I just ripped a CD to MP3 last night. How dare I steal 11 songs . . .

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Every time I play a CD, I am creating an analog copy of it ("stored" in vibrations in the air), which is then stored, using lossy compression, within my own mind. Oops, I guess I made two accidental copies of it. RIAA, please sue me.

no, a copy is something affixed in a medium. the transitory vibrations in air are not affixing, and your brain isn't a medium.

Ah, but you brain IS a medium. It stores data, which makes it a medium. The interface to the brain is very complex, but science is getting closer to being able read at least some information from the brain.

Heres one for you, every time you play you music, the vibrations from the air a jaring the atoms in the walls, floor, everywhere. If we where advanced enough we could read the variations on the position of each atom and be able to recreate the music that was just played. Hence, the fixed atoms have become a medium and every time someone places a song they are making Numerous copies. Whats worse is if they move out of their house, imagine how many of those songs have just been stolen! We should all be arrested.

BTW, I think the RIAA is retarded. Yes, stealing is wrong, but so is the invasion of privacy, and assuming a person guilty until proven innocent. Not to mention the thousand dollar lawsuit per $1 song, can we say Cruel and Unusual punishment? There should be a cap of something like 10 X (current price of the song stolen) or something along that line.

 

[child of wonder]

If the RIAA were to start suing consumers for ripping legally purchased CDs to MP3 I think it would be our duty as American citizens to rise up and slay them.

 

[marvdmartian]

This actually showed up on Dailytech, on December 17th. Link.

The story the OP linked to is not entirely complete, as the Dailytech article included this:

The RIAA wrote that ?it is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies? ? referring to the Howell?s collection of mp3 files made from their own CDs ? and noted that ?once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.?

The Judge?s question was, ?Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an ?unlawful copy? of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public??

So the real point isn't that the plaintiff made mp3's (although the RIAA would love to be able to stop us from doing that, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it falls within fair use to do that, and reversing a decision like that would probably take more money than the RIAA is willing to spend to do so), the point is that he ripped the cd into mp3's, then put it in his share folder for his p2p program.

Whether it was done intentionally or not is up to the court to decide. Either way, by sharing those files, he was breaking the law. Anyone who hasn't figured that out by now must be sharing space under a rock with the RIAA's lawyers. :roll:

 

[I Saw OJ]

I know the recording industry is losing money do to downloadable music (arguably their own fault), but how much money are they dumping into investigating and prosecuting these music "pirates". Its got to be an astounding figure.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
This actually showed up on Dailytech, on December 17th. Link.

The story the OP linked to is not entirely complete, as the Dailytech article included this:

The RIAA wrote that ?it is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies? ? referring to the Howell?s collection of mp3 files made from their own CDs ? and noted that ?once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.?

The Judge?s question was, ?Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an ?unlawful copy? of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public??

So the real point isn't that the plaintiff made mp3's (although the RIAA would love to be able to stop us from doing that, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it falls within fair use to do that, and reversing a decision like that would probably take more money than the RIAA is willing to spend to do so), the point is that he ripped the cd into mp3's, then put it in his share folder for his p2p program.

Whether it was done intentionally or not is up to the court to decide. Either way, by sharing those files, he was breaking the law. Anyone who hasn't figured that out by now must be sharing space under a rock with the RIAA's lawyers. :roll:

Understood. I was wondering how they would ever know she did this in the first place.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Heres one for you, every time you play you music, the vibrations from the air a jaring the atoms in the walls, floor, everywhere. If we where advanced enough we could read the variations on the position of each atom and be able to recreate the music that was just played. Hence, the fixed atoms have become a medium and every time someone places a song they are making Numerous copies. Whats worse is if they move out of their house, imagine how many of those songs have just been stolen! We should all be arrested.

They should probably also sue all the auto manufacturers for allowing CDs to play in the stereo when the windows are rolled down, as this represents unauthorized broadcasting of the music.

 

[Miramonti]

Good. This needs to be resolved once and for all.