Morganized Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 RIAA Claims Ripping CDs for Personal Use is Illegal Posted Dec 11th 2007 9:50AM by Terrence O'Brien Filed under: Audio/Video, Computers, iPod Just as it seemed as though the record industry was starting to figure this whole thing out, here it goes and does something that makes us at the Switched offices shake our heads. The RIAA has filed a brief in an Arizona U.S. District Court against Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, an average Joe and Jane couple who have ripped their CD collection to MP3s for easy sharing throughout their home and -- presumably -- iPods. The brief claims that ripping CDs to MP3s is a violation of copyright laws and the fair use doctrine. The audacity of the RIAA's claim wouldn't be to surprising, given its penchant for overzealous attacks of digital media, if it weren't in direct contradiction of arguments made by RIAA lawyers in a case filed in 2005. In the case, MGM Vs. Grokster, representation from the RIAA explicitly said that making digital copies of music for personal use was protected. Atlantic Vs. Howell is scheduled to have its first hearing on January 24. Here's hoping that this case gets tossed out, because if the courts find in favor of Atlantic, it will place all of us with digital audio devices on the RIAA's hit list. [Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks, which could give the RIAA a leg to stand on here. That said, this case remains interesting due to the language the RIAA is including regarding one's rights to rip his own CDs.] What a Country!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 [Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks actually that looks like the core of the case the me; read the brief, the part about the unauthorised copies is on p. 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 [Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks actually that looks like the core of the case the me; read the brief, the part about the unauthorised copies is on p. 15. This makes sense. It would be interesting to know if the laws about software copyrights are similar. Let consider this case: I am a private citizen that has two computers at home, I buy one copy of a program and install it on both computers, am I violating any laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockefeller center Posted December 11, 2007 Report Share Posted December 11, 2007 I buy one copy of a program and install it on both computers, am I violating any laws? Depends on the license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I buy one copy of a program and install it on both computers, am I violating any laws? Depends on the license. I know that when I had a company and I used a program for my job I had a contract of licensing and manteinance for every systems, (AVID editing suites), but as private citizen that doesn't use software for working, is it the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockefeller center Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I buy one copy of a program and install it on both computers, am I violating any laws? Depends on the license. I know that when I had a company and I used a program for my job I had a contract of licensing and manteinance for every systems, (AVID editing suites), but as private citizen that doesn't use software for working, is it the same? If there's no explicit exception for private users, yes. (Usually I don't have that "problem" because I almost exclusively use FOSS) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 RIAA Claims Ripping CDs for Personal Use is Illegal The brief claims that ripping CDs to MP3s is a violation of copyright laws and the fair use doctrine. What a Country!! Worth noting that in the UK, ripping your own CDs for MP3s, even without sharing/uploading them violates copyright law. This is never enforced, and there is serious discussion about changing the law there, but worth noting that it could be worse ... MP3s in Britain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Buying and listening to secondhand vinyl remains the best way to stick it to the bastards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 A series of apropos cliches......... No matter how you cut the cake.. the horse left the barn... The cat is out of the bag... It's all over but the shoutin'... It's water under the bridge... That ship sailed... The record business has been Hoisted by it's own petard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morganized Posted December 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 [Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks actually that looks like the core of the case the me; read the brief, the part about the unauthorised copies is on p. 15. Agreed....Looks like the article is misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Buying and listening to secondhand vinyl remains the best way to stick it to the bastards... You might be sticking it to the RIAA, but you're also sticking it to the artists. For the most part, I avoid secondhand recordings these days because I want to make sure the artists get something, especially if it's a less popular artist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 [Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks actually that looks like the core of the case the me; read the brief, the part about the unauthorised copies is on p. 15. Thanks for posting that. The brief outlines the particulars of the case. It doesn't look like this has anything to do with sharing music with the guy's spouse, but rather on Kazaa. Makes sense--I was wondering how the RIAA would have figured out that he was only sharing the files with his wife if it was on a closed/private network, and it kind of had me worried since I share files with my wife over our home network all the time. That apparently was not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 I buy one copy of a program and install it on both computers, am I violating any laws? Depends on the license. I know that when I had a company and I used a program for my job I had a contract of licensing and manteinance for every systems, (AVID editing suites), but as private citizen that doesn't use software for working, is it the same? If there's no explicit exception for private users, yes. (Usually I don't have that "problem" because I almost exclusively use FOSS) Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Buying and listening to secondhand vinyl remains the best way to stick it to the bastards... You might be sticking it to the RIAA, but you're also sticking it to the artists. For the most part, I avoid secondhand recordings these days because I want to make sure the artists get something, especially if it's a less popular artist. Hasn't the RIAA been sticking it to the artists for years? This organization was never set up for the benefit of the industry's creative member, just the record companies--and we all know how they have treated the majority of artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Buying and listening to secondhand vinyl remains the best way to stick it to the bastards... You might be sticking it to the RIAA, but you're also sticking it to the artists. For the most part, I avoid secondhand recordings these days because I want to make sure the artists get something, especially if it's a less popular artist. Hasn't the RIAA been sticking it to the artists for years? This organization was never set up for the benefit of the industry's creative member, just the record companies--and we all know how they have treated the majority of artists. Perfectly true - but it doesn't mean that, in all cases, the artists get nothing. Mostly, they get little. But a little bit on top of that little can't be unwelcome - and doubtless wouldn't be willingly foregone. MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.