Wow, when is the RIAA going to stop

[nightowl]

All I can say is wow!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=953494

RIAA Says MP3s Ripped From CDs Are ?Unauthorized?
In Atlantic v. Howell, RIAA claims converted music for personal use is not authorized.

The RIAA, those champions of freedom and fair use, has taken its crusade against digital media to a new level, arguing that MP3s ripped from a CD are ?unauthorized? copies of original music.

In Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA claims that ?[once] Defendant converted Plaintiffs? recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.?



From the supplemental brief from the RIAA:

Quote:
It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs? copyrighted sound recordings on his computer.
...
Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife?s use.
So, because the defendant in this case converted a CD to MP3s, they?re no longer authorized? That certainly seems like a stretch, even for the RIAA.

However unlikely this is to become the rule of law, it?s a major step for the RIAA to claim that consumers can?t make digital versions of music from legally purchased CDs

 

[RightIsWrong]

How do I put this delicately.....

FUCK THEM!!!

Once I buy the freaking CD it is mine to do with what I want.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
How do I put this delicately.....

FUCK THEM!!!

Once I buy the freaking CD it is mine to do with what I want.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

I would suggest that who they are as individuals and where they live ought to be on the web so that they can be subjected to social ostracism, ridicule and scorn. They thrive as assholes because of anonymity.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I would suggest that who they are as individuals and where they live ought to be on the web so that they can be subjected to social ostracism, ridicule and scorn. They thrive as assholes because of anonymity.

If you wanted my address you could just ask. :heart:

 

[jonks]

Don't freak out please. The RIAA has never sued anyone for cd ripping and I can't imagine they ever would. P2P provides them enough targets to keep them happy.

 

[CycloWizard]

So now they RIAA is selling you neither a physical product nor a license to its content. This implies that CDs have no real value, since I do not own them even after I pay for them. Therefore, what's the difference between downloading "illegal" mp3's and buying a CD from the RIAA, besides $20? Having the contents of either on my computer is apparently illegal, so I may as well choose the cheaper option. :roll:

 

[nightowl]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Don't freak out please. The RIAA has never sued anyone for cd ripping and I can't imagine they ever would. P2P provides them enough targets to keep them happy.

Now, I have not read the entire legal notice (a couple links deep) but it does certainly set precedence for this to happen since the RIAA is claiming that copying to MP3 is in violation.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nightowl

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Don't freak out please. The RIAA has never sued anyone for cd ripping and I can't imagine they ever would. P2P provides them enough targets to keep them happy.

Now, I have not read the entire legal notice (a couple links deep) but it does certainly set precedence for this to happen since the RIAA is claiming that copying to MP3 is in violation.

This isn't a new argument, they made the same claims as far back as Feb 2006. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

Is it a reversal of their prior position in Grokster? Sure, but so what. As I said, they have millions of p2p people to sue, they aren't going to waste time and money going after individuals who merely rip, first off because they have no easy way of finding that info out, and second because there is essentially no damages from merely ripping without actively sharing.

And if you are sued for sharing at this point, you have had fair warning that it's illegal and that they're actively pursuing claims against p2p.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Topic Summary: going after users ripping CDs to MP3s for personal use

This isn't true, at least not yet. The case you quote is going after KaZaA p2p infringers.

 

[Pabster]

Actually, ^^^ is correct. But RIAA personnel have made comments to the effect that they believe making a fair-use copy and creating MP3s from purchased Audio CDs is illegal.

 

[BoberFett]

I think what the RIAA might be after is higher penalties as a scare tactic. Let me lay out a scenario:

I do not personally download music. I have made a choice to boycott RIAA music, purchased or not. I no longer purchase CDs. That doesn't stop RIAA from claiming that I do download music and seizing my computer in a raid with a bunch of thugs wielding assault rifles. They seem to have cart blance to do anything they want and law enforcement agencies don't seem to have any problem with assisting them. If they were to search my machine they'd find my entire CD collection ripped: over 400 CDs, nearly 5000 tracks. At the rate that Jammie Thomas paid ($9250/song) that would put my judgement at over $40,000,000.

It's not about actual damages, and it's not even about sharing, this is just one more way to strike the fear of bankruptcy into the populace.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: nightowl

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Don't freak out please. The RIAA has never sued anyone for cd ripping and I can't imagine they ever would. P2P provides them enough targets to keep them happy.

Now, I have not read the entire legal notice (a couple links deep) but it does certainly set precedence for this to happen since the RIAA is claiming that copying to MP3 is in violation.

This isn't a new argument, they made the same claims as far back as Feb 2006. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

Is it a reversal of their prior position in Grokster? Sure, but so what. As I said, they have millions of p2p people to sue, they aren't going to waste time and money going after individuals who merely rip, first off because they have no easy way of finding that info out, and second because there is essentially no damages from merely ripping without actively sharing.

And if you are sued for sharing at this point, you have had fair warning that it's illegal and that they're actively pursuing claims against p2p.

Right. Nothing to worry about. And if the RIAA can get the courts to agree that ripping is illegal, how soon will hardware and software follow suit to keep you from ripping?

Isn't there a saying about giving an inch?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: nightowl

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Don't freak out please. The RIAA has never sued anyone for cd ripping and I can't imagine they ever would. P2P provides them enough targets to keep them happy.

Now, I have not read the entire legal notice (a couple links deep) but it does certainly set precedence for this to happen since the RIAA is claiming that copying to MP3 is in violation.

This isn't a new argument, they made the same claims as far back as Feb 2006. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

Is it a reversal of their prior position in Grokster? Sure, but so what. As I said, they have millions of p2p people to sue, they aren't going to waste time and money going after individuals who merely rip, first off because they have no easy way of finding that info out, and second because there is essentially no damages from merely ripping without actively sharing.

And if you are sued for sharing at this point, you have had fair warning that it's illegal and that they're actively pursuing claims against p2p.

Right. Nothing to worry about. And if the RIAA can get the courts to agree that ripping is illegal, how soon will hardware and software follow suit to keep you from ripping?

Isn't there a saying about giving an inch?

Don't you see that would be the best thing that could possibly happen? People still buy cd's and support the RIAA by doing so, even though the recording industry has been suing its own best customers. Calls for boycotts have fallen on deaf ears for a decade now. Pushing hardware that prevented ripping would immediately kill the industry and accomplish in short order what the opposition has been unable to do after years of organized protest. Those of us who hate the RIAA can only pray they would make such a move. Never happen though. They just want to strengthen the cases they do prosecute which is against p2p users.

 

[teclis1023]

I used to be passionately against pirating. In theory, I still am. I didn't download albums or videos or software. The RIAA and MPAA have made it their personal quests to obliterate every ounce of compassion that I had for them. They're crashing computers, loading spyware and suing people for ridiculous amounts. It pisses me off, and I haven't even done anything wrong! Now they want to stop me from ripping music to my iPod? But I haven't even stolen their stuff! I have a binder of CDs to prove it.

No longer. If this is how they're going to play, they've lost me as an ally. I'm all for protecting your product, but when you start trying to take away my abilities as a computer user and my freedoms as a consumer, you've gone too far.

 

[Moonbeam]

Find out who they are as people and sue them for everything under the sun. Form a net community, take donations and hire lawyers to harass them as individuals.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Don't you see that would be the best thing that could possibly happen? People still buy cd's and support the RIAA by doing so, even though the recording industry has been suing its own best customers. Calls for boycotts have fallen on deaf ears for a decade now. Pushing hardware that prevented ripping would immediately kill the industry and accomplish in short order what the opposition has been unable to do after years of organized protest. Those of us who hate the RIAA can only pray they would make such a move. Never happen though. They just want to strengthen the cases they do prosecute which is against p2p users.

You've lost me here. How would preventing ripping kill the industry and inspire boycotting? Seems to me that it would just create a demand for music in mp3 format, which the RIAA would then be very glad to sell you, in addition to that CD you already bought.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Don't you see that would be the best thing that could possibly happen? People still buy cd's and support the RIAA by doing so, even though the recording industry has been suing its own best customers. Calls for boycotts have fallen on deaf ears for a decade now. Pushing hardware that prevented ripping would immediately kill the industry and accomplish in short order what the opposition has been unable to do after years of organized protest. Those of us who hate the RIAA can only pray they would make such a move. Never happen though. They just want to strengthen the cases they do prosecute which is against p2p users.

You've lost me here. How would preventing ripping kill the industry and inspire boycotting? Seems to me that it would just create a demand for music in mp3 format, which the RIAA would then be very glad to sell you, in addition to that CD you already bought.

If the industry somehow convinced the courts to outlaw ripping, and all hardware manufacturers were forced to implement that restriction, then who is going to buy a CD knowing they can't rip it to mp3? At this point almost everyone has an mp3 player. CD sales are down like 10% but that's still an ungodly amount of business. The large majority of people that are still buying CDs are ripping them. If people cannot rip CDs, they won't buy CDs, and what's left of the cd industry will fold. That's how many hundreds of millions of $?

Your guess is that such a move would increase demand for digital versions, but that people would ALSO buy the CD? I don't see that happening at all.

 

[manowar821]

Hehe... I'm glad that I know how to hide, they'd have a field day with my house.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Hehe... I'm glad that I know how to hide, they'd have a field day with my house.

I don't think they'd have a field day with my house ... not sure if anyone would be too happy when they dealt with a pissed off man wielding a spiked mace, because I'd grab mine and swing!

 

[Lemon law]

Until congress steps up to the plate and modernizes our copyright laws to account for the new technologies, this and similar crapola will be the general rule.

But the big flaw in the copyright laws is that individuals have always been free to steal and use patentable ideas and content. And manufacture their own devices or content for their own enjoyment. It only becomes a copyright violation when the individual uses that copyright they don't own to sell someone else's work to others for profit.

At least with p2p, the exchange means is on the internet and the internet can be monitored, if and only if the courts allow the RIAA&MPAA to do so. But ripping your OWN CD
to MP3 to make a back up copy or to allow it to be transferred to an ipod is not monitorable and it would be a huge privacy violation to allow any monitoring. Yet we see, in this escalating war crapola, is an attempt to make a pre emtive strike that the courts should shoot down. Sooner or later the RIAA&MPAA will go too far, and then a huge backlash will come.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

If the industry somehow convinced the courts to outlaw ripping, and all hardware manufacturers were forced to implement that restriction, then who is going to buy a CD knowing they can't rip it to mp3? At this point almost everyone has an mp3 player. CD sales are down like 10% but that's still an ungodly amount of business. The large majority of people that are still buying CDs are ripping them. If people cannot rip CDs, they won't buy CDs, and what's left of the cd industry will fold. That's how many hundreds of millions of $?

Your guess is that such a move would increase demand for digital versions, but that people would ALSO buy the CD? I don't see that happening at all.

No, but the RIAA will happily sell you the new format to replace those CDs in your collection. They've done this for every other new format over the years. Got vinyl? We'll sell you the replacement 8-track. Got 8-track? We'll sell you the replacement cassette, etc. In fact, as I write this, I'm sure that's the real motivation behind them trying to make ripping illegal. Not that it's part and parcel of p2p, but that they won't have the opportunity to resell your CD collection to you in mp3 format.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: manowar821
Hehe... I'm glad that I know how to hide, they'd have a field day with my house.

I don't think they'd have a field day with my house ... not sure if anyone would be too happy when they dealt with a pissed off man wielding a spiked mace, because I'd grab mine and swing!

Oh sure, I mean AFTER they manage to subdue me without having to level the place.

 

[SlickSnake]

This isn't really about your rights to fair use of the CD. It's about the RIAA being able to extort money under fear and threat using the legal system as a means to do so. The real source of all the music piracy is from foreign countries who do nothing to control piracy, such as China. They are losing billions of dollars a year to this piracy, yet they do nothing. Why is that? Why are they not going after all these illegal factories churning out CDs and DVDs, when they know most of the time where and even in what factories they are being produced?

So instead of combating the piracy on international terms, through legal intervention against those governments which is very costly, they instead take the cheap road and threaten and sue the very consumers who support their parasitic lifestyles. That is a criminal thing to do, and our legal system is supporting them blindly just like they support every other parasitic corporate interest. Make no mistake, the RIAA are literal parasites in the most obvious use of the word. They create nothing themselves, they are solely dependent on the artistic skills of others to make a living, through suing.

If all the recording artists actually retained their own rights to their creations, which they should, they could simply stop supporting the parasitic record companies and the even lower forms of parasitic life like the RIAA and release their recordings on the internet and through other marketing means via CDs and make a lot more money in the process. Sadly, most artists are not good business people, and this is what the recording industry exploits.

 

[compuwiz1]

What I don't understand is how in the hell the RIAA would even know if I rip a CD for personal use, if I don't broadcast it over the web.