RIAA suing man for digital copies of legally purchased music

[Potato]

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

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.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html)

[rainbowdemon]

Pretty damn pathetic, isn't it?

[Signa]

was it in a shared folder? 'cause im sure thats what they are basing the argument on. if not, then they dont have a case.

[Jared Moya]

Pretty damn pathetic, isn't it?

seriously......

[isus]

was it in a shared folder? 'cause im sure thats what they are basing the argument on. if not, then they dont have a case.

Read it again - "In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

This is one of those dangerous lawsuits - what happens here will become precedent and could be used against, well, any of us. Whether or not the RIAA has a legitimate case here or not is no matter - if some technologically incompetent judge gets hold of this and says it's illegal, the RIAA would have some leverage to try to get it passed as law through Congress.

Now if someone with a little common sense is given this case, then it will probably be thrown out, but that won't stop the RIAA from trying it again and again and again.

[HelenaP]

I am not sure my husband (poor baby) understands the depth these guys will sink to.

Last night we were watching a movie, the piracy warning comes on (it's a rented video), he gets "that sad look" in his eye. I look at him and say "Honey, do you not understand that the stack of CD cases and empty CD's are part of this battle for digital freedom? That if they have their way, it should be illegal to have those in our house, even to put music on them (for our OWN fricking use. I don't like traveling with original store bought CD's) that we have paid for"
He said, "Yes."
I still don't think he does, so I am going to mail him this link (thanks Potato).

Now here are my observations (the temptation to "scream" in bold, black, 42 pt. font is almost too much);

If it is illegal for me to have music I paid for on my computer, then it's illegal to have any on my Sansa.

Guess they will need to shut down all online music stores, stop selling portable music players and blank CD's (that royalties are still paid to the artist for, regardless that it's "illegal" to use them.).

Then they will need to remove all video recording devices and blank medium for those machines from the shelves of all stores that carry them.

I hope they all burn in hell. Really I do. Music is the reason I ever wandered into the P2P world and it wasn't to "get some for free."

The implications that these recent actions of the RIAA and the MPAA could mean for the rest of the Internet and digital freedom (EFF people! Go sign up if you really care enough to bitch in this thread about it!)...it's too much to bear thinking about
(Potato, please feel free to edit any grammatical errors).

Gah!!

I really couldn't stop myself.

[notbob]

if a "sansa" is an mp3 player, you hit the nail squarely on the head. the riaa (more accurately the labels they represent) want you to have to buy music (a second time if you have it on cd) to fill your mp3 player rather than being able to transfer it via some other format. they see mp3 players as cash machines--"if that thing holds 1000 songs, and we charge a buck a song, that's 1000 bucks! and there are millions of them!"

the flaw with the riaa argument is that copying a cd doesn't break the dmca because there is no encryption. therefore, the fair use rights (which no longer apply to dvds) still apply to cds. "format shifting" is a completely legal thing to do, and the record companies hate that. they can't stick on encryption, because it would bugger up the millions of cd players (because unlike dvd players, they weren't designed to accept any sort of protection). now, they make a pr scare campaign about the evils of cd copying to scare housewives and jesus freaks

i think there's more to this story though. i doubt the riaa went looking for some guy with a digitized cd collection to sue. more likely, he got busted on some p2p, got a call about his "illegal copies", to which his defense was "i own these copies" it's all smoke and mirrors anyway

[HelenaP]

..

i think there's more to this story though. i doubt the riaa went looking for some guy with a digitized cd collection to sue. more likely, he got busted on some p2p, got a call about his "illegal copies", to which his defense was "i own these copies" it's all smoke and mirrors anyway

I still hope the EvilEmpire burns in hell.
Happy Holidays.

[rainbowdemon]

seriously......


Cool sig, bud!!

:icon_thum

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I'm sorry if I somehow missed this over the past 4½ years of my campaign, but doesn't what's in my signature still hold true?

While I think there is more to this story also, if not, then it's a case the RIAA is destined to lose. That is, unless the rules are going to change.

[rainbowdemon]

Rules? It seems to me like the RIAA are making up the rules as they go.



Assholes!!

[isus]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

Good ol' mainstream media... Picking up bullshit stories to fill up space.

[Potato]

Bummer.

The RIAA is still sue-happy.

[Stownplayer]

Nothing new. Dicks until the bitter end. Their time is approaching.

[tackdaddy]

this is one of the reasons have not bought a CD in 6 years. they just want more and more, whats the point of owning something if you can't use it to do everything it is capable of. i think the RIAA will lose this but it is ridiculous, they take greed to a whole new level. i think everyone should boycott the record industry and just steal all the music you can until law changes and clarifications are made to how you can use the music you own. CD's will be dead in a few years, then what will they do? what you are actually doing is leasing the music not buying it.

[halfcack]

RIAA has a secret. I found out about it in the early '70's when i worked at defunct Liberty Records.

The RIAA sanctioned rip was the best of all. Bands were blind at that time before and some time after. RIAA sponsored a little program called take a record home.

On the weekends, certain trusted people would automatically have their cars filled up on a Friday before a nice selling weekend with promo / demo copies of to be released records or current popular records from all the major labels.

It became so big, just plain old employees would have their cars loaded up, having had their network setup in their area, dump them to their "distributor" who sold them for a buck or two.

The bands paid for this known as the above, promo's, advanced copies, radio copies, and even with a punchhole in them no one cared. Sanctioned by the RIAA, this practice was huge, when I got home one weekend and opened the trunk, there were copies of every hot record Liberty had at the time. Being a smuck from a smaller city, I was petrified. When I got back to work, I asked the dock guys what was going on. They looked at me, like, about what ?, the records, man. What, you don't know about that, (huge laughter), then proceeded to explain. I said I didn't really have the time to do that so I really didn't need them. My bud, said ok and that was it.

So, every chance I get I will have to go to the snitch part of the site and turn in the RIAA, which has thousands of songs on it's computers and it's employees which have millions.

When I saw this story on Drudgereports, I went nutz. RIAA need to go down. This is the same crap they were doing back then.

Turn in the RIAA at riaa.com. They are blatant criminals.

[Signa]

...what you are actually doing is leasing the music not buying it.

this right here i understand. they need to draw the line between owning a song, and having the rights to listen to it. sure, it sounds crappy for us, as we are "buying" a physical product that isnt really ours, but if it was ours, we could do anything with it we wanted as if we owned the rights to the song. its also where i think they have messed up. if i payed for the rights to listen/watch something, then WHY THEY HELL DO I NEED TO PAY AGAIN FOR ANOTHER FORMAT!? you cant expect me to believe that im "renting" my songs twice when i have to buy something again in digital format.

edit: also, i forgot to mention that if we are "renting" our CDs, then they need to get us replacements for free when they stop working.