RIAA Argues that Ripping MP3 from CDs Is Illegal

posted by soulxtc in music // 344 days 10 hours 42 minutes ago

Calls them "unauthorized copies."

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.

The RIAA's brief makes the novel contention, contradicting its lawyers' arguments at the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, that making personal copies of songs from one's CD onto one's computer is an infringement.

In the US Supreme Court, the record company lawyers said:

The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward.

Now on page 15 of its brief in the current case of Atlantic v,. Howell, the RIAA states the following:

Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the “.mp3” extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. 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. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.

And lo and behold we consumers get to try and figure out - at the risk of lawsuit - what the heck the RIAA is arguing to be either legal or illegal.

It's enough to drive you crazy.

News Tip? Comment? Suggestion? jared@zeropaid.com

Recent News

CRTC: 'Bell Canada Can Throttle BitTorrent - For Now'
Aussie Movie & TV Industry Sues ISP for Allowing P2P Piracy
CRTC to Rule on Bell's BitTorrent Throttling Tomorrow
Anti-P2P Group: 'Online Piracy Must Equal Physical Piracy'
French Court Okays Music Industry Lawsuit Targeting P2P Companies, Sourceforge
STUDY: Pirated Music on P2P Networks Valued at $69 Billion in 2007
Duke Now Requires RIAA to Have Proof of Illegal File-Sharing

#1 lol

riaa cunts.

posted by John Milton 344 days 6 hours 54 minutes ago
#2 I happen to be a in school for law and I had one of my teacher read this. He said that they were referring to the actual putting of the files online to be illegal not the copying of the files to the folder. Read you tards it says the copying of the files and putting them in the shared folder to be shared is illegal and sorry folks but it is.

posted by murrhound 344 days 5 hours 9 minutes ago
#3 He is clearly saying that he was showing the intent to distribute and that is illegal as well. The actual copying is not what is being called illegal

posted by murrhound 344 days 5 hours 7 minutes ago
#4 watch who you call "tards." soul isnt one to grab news out of his ass if it sounds like it will make a stir. That being said, you are correct. but its not like the RIAA has ever had a clear understanding of what is right; just what makes them the most money.

posted by Signa 344 days 2 hours 36 minutes ago
#5 Removed_by_a_moderator.

posted by John Milton 344 days 41 minutes ago
#6 Hey milton just so you know intent to distribute and sharing are the same thing in the eyes of the law. You dont have the right to copy, copy righted material and then allow others do make their own copys. Its still falls under piracy laws. When you share your weed you can still be charged with intent for distribution. Thats why people that get caught doing that kind of stuff, also get charged with the sale of a controlled substance. So in the case of music the idea of sharing would still fall under the intent to distribute. If the person was selling the items then they could charge them with unlicensed sale of copy righted material. Two different charges and laws. So my apologies for having offended you. Im not disagreeing that the riaa is insane and that there should be some compromise in the p2p area but I will admit that Im stealing. Whats the difference in me stealing an album off the internet from me going to the store and taking it. Both are still causing the same exact problem. Again dont get me wrong I do dl music and will continue to do so.

posted by murrhound 343 days 23 hours 38 minutes ago
#7 Murrhound it is kind of dick of you to call people tards but jesus christ does milton go way to far. Its none of your business what murrhound does in his gay circle jerk. I dont think you should be letting everyone know that he does that anyway since your dad is usually in attendance of these circle jerks.

posted by murrhound 343 days 23 hours 28 minutes ago
#8 By the way im not the owner of this name i happen to be using my friends computer and Im just trying to get him pissed off by posting asshole things. #7 is me #6 was him. So just keep talking trash and making him look like an ass.

posted by murrhound 343 days 23 hours 27 minutes ago
#9 It's funny to fight on the same user name, I wondered what the was going on.. :) Murrhound is a nice name though, where does it come from? Woof.

It sounds like they are trying to have it that just ripping to an mp3 isn't legal, but whatever, they have it all mashed together when it would be better to separate it into points, ripping as one, and sharing as two, explaining each.

posted by Boomer The Dog 343 days 16 hours 59 minutes ago
#10 Boomer

You make a valid point and my friends are dicks. I again am sorry for any offenses caused on these forums

posted by murrhound 343 days 7 hours 43 minutes ago
#11 If ripping a CD to your hard drive is not illegal don't you think they want to extend this to mean that eventually? Then you have to buy a physical CD to listen to the music in the CD Players and you have to purchase online DRM-protected tracks if you want to listen to to the music on your portable player. It's the best of both worlds for them. They'll be back in power and stealing our money soon enough.

posted by bobhss 342 days 43 minutes ago
#12 " If ripping a CD to your hard drive is not illegal don't you think they want to extend this to mean that eventually? Then you have to buy a physical CD to listen to the music in the CD Players and you have to purchase online DRM-protected tracks if you want to listen to to the music on your portable player. It's the best of both worlds for them. They'll be back in power and stealing our money soon enough."

even if they do, the hackers will find a way around it-they'll NEVER stop us!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by fonzbear2000 341 days 3 hours ago
#13 No cause the supreme court has ruled on this as fair use going back to the beta max case. Then look at the fact that mp3 players would drop off the face of the earth sales wise due to the fact that people would probably no longer be buying them since its illegal to rip them you would be cutting out a large portion of the money that certain companys make by doing this. Its especialy retarded when there are company's making mp3 players that own music labels so they would be shooting them selves twice over and the idea of buying all the drm protected media online would be another shot in the foot cause one they would be killing the actual cd sales and it would piss a lot of people off that buy the cd then have to rebuy it for their mp3 player. Its all dumb and the riaa is going to kill the industry. Hell certain music labels have actually came out and said they are doing more harm then good with the riaa. Its all sad

posted by murrhound 340 days 6 hours 11 minutes ago
#14 Removed_by_a_moderator.

posted by masti101 327 days 11 hours 59 minutes ago
#15 So Is the RIAA going to have Undercover Agents Stopping Everyone walking around with MP3 Players and Demand that They show Proper Paperwork for the Tunes that They have on the Players ? .99 a tune x 1000 + songs, Thats a Lot of Recipts to carry around !

Get Warrants to search your House to see if You have CD'S, Vinyl, Tapes and Match them up to Your Players, Computers, or CD-R's or DVD Discs. 70% of The U.S. would be in Court ! and I'm sure if International laws became Effective, Half the World would be involved.

Gee You think the RIAA has $ signs on that Thought !!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by mach -1 323 days 4 hours 27 minutes ago

RIAA Argues that Ripping MP3 from CDs Is Illegal

Calls them "unauthorized copies."

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?

Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize P2P

New Legislation Would Increase Penalties for Copyright Infringement

TVLinks Alternatives for Free TV Shows & Movies

Tips on how to not get busted for file-sharing

3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!

3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE

BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines

uTorrent - A Beginner's guide to BitTorrent downloading

News Tip? Comment? Suggestion? jared@zeropaid.com