Slashdot Log In
RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized'
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Dec 30, 2007 03:35 PM
from the so-it's-only-halfway-evil dept.
from the so-it's-only-halfway-evil dept.
An Engadget article notes that the Washington Post RIAA article we discussed earlier today may have been poorly phrased. The original article implied that the Association's suit stemmed from the music ripping. As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies' ... "something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs 403 comments
mrneutron2003 writes "With this past week's announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The RIAA, would begin changing its tune. Instead, they are pressing on in their campaign against consumers by suing individuals who merely rip CDs they've purchased legally. '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.'"
[+]
Copyright Cutback Proposed As RIAA Solution 709 comments
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. 'We should do what we do to children who misbehave,' he writes. 'Take away their privileges.' Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstanding of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Shooting in foot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shooting in foot (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A very good point. Normal backing-up is permitted under "fair use". However, if the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because it is in a shared directory does not constitute actual sharing. It may just be there for displ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How are they shooting themselves in the foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the status quo is nothing more than a de facto presumption of legality. At such point as a judge rules that it is legal, that becomes legal precedent. The last thing they want is for format shifting to be ruled fair use, since they have made their living over the decades precisely through reselling the same content in different formats over and over again.
More to the point, format shifting at least currently is only presumed to be fair use when done by an individual. Depending on how a ruling on format shifting was worded, there's at least the potential that it might make it legal for someone to set up a commercial format shifting service that provides crystal clear digital copies of your worn out phonograph records without paying the RIAA, its members, the composer, artist, or publisher a dime. Nothing would scare a greedy, corrupt cartel like the RIAA more than the risk of format shifting becoming de jure legal in the more general case, as that would mean that they basically would have to make a living entirely by creating new music that is worth listening to, something which they haven't, IMHO, done successfully in a very long time. :-D
Re:How are they shooting themselves in the foot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no reason why rupping a CD to MP3 is any different than recording
Re:How are they shooting themselves in the foot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people want fairness more than they want the letter of the law. To most of us, it seems fair that distributing copies to people in defiance of ownership type rights is unfair. Most juries (in the U. S. at least), would award damages for a case of someone distributing something they don't own the right to distribute. Many, probably most there would approve of criminal charges.
But juries usually want to be 'fair'. 'Fair' means that it's much more serious to sell copies for substantial profit than to pass them around for 'free'. 'Fair' means that off air recording is either not wrong, or it's a pretty trivial wrong. 'Fair' means they don't want a EULA to be the equivalent of a normal signed paper contract.
So when the recording industry starts claiming that their rights are being violated by people making legitimate backups, or not buying a second copy to use in the car, or using a VCR for space or time shifting, or lots of other thing, the recording industry starts looking like Darth Vader/Simon Legree/Satan, etc. They come off as anal-compulsive jerks trying to give basically honest people a hard time, rip off little old ladies, tie Nell Fenwick to the tracks, and probably eat live kittens on their days off.
And the jury is looking for any chance to do what's 'fair' to Baelzebub/Snydley Whiplash/Hannibal Lecter. So, they don't just reject the arguement that ripping is a violation of fair use, they look for excuses to reject the rest of the RIAA's claim as well. Any excuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the UK, it would be called Fair Dealing, and has never been tested in a Court of Law. Therefore the Autho
Hooray for Flip-Flopping! (Score:2, Informative)
imagine that (Score:5, Informative)
Comment I posted in a firehose [slashdot.org] story (which took all of 30 seconds to realize the summary was simplistic and wrong):
More Info
here [washingtonpost.com] and here [arstechnica.com]
Looks like the person in question was using Kazaa, which listed his mp3 files, although they weren't actually shared (uhh ... does kazaa publish them if they're not shared?) Media Sentry found them (but didn't actually download them?). He represented himself and lost big time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The amazing thing is that we actually have a new story to correct the old?! In nearly 10 years I don't think I've ever seen something so close to an actual retraction on slashdot!
Nope, try again... (Score:5, Informative)
Still wrong.
They sued him over uploading, or at least, having the files in question in his Kazaa shared folder.
Yes, they may have "taken the gloves off" regarding their terminology, but this case has the exact same underlying "offense" as the thousands of other RIAA lawsuits we've heard about in the past few years.
The RIAA is correct for once! (Score:5, Interesting)
However, these copies are not illegal.
Under fair use, you are allowed to make copies for your personal use, and it is perfectly legal.
In this case, "unauthorized" is used in the sense of "Britney Spears Unauthorized Biography" instead of "Britney Spears Authorized Biography". Both are perfectly legal.
A sad sign of the times... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No. That comes later.
Re:A sad sign of the times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the RIAA is allowed to make frivolous statem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the Betamax decision, for example, the Supreme Court differentiated between "time-shifting
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course it's unauthorized (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, technically they *are* unauthorized (Score:5, Informative)
Just because something has a fair use defense, however, does not mean it was authorized. In fact, asserting a fair use defense is a tacit acknowledgement that the copyright holder did not authorize the use, hence the need to rely on the fair use doctrine.
Finally, even if ripping tracks is a fair use (likely), putting them online for someone else (especially if that someone else is not within the sphere of your private household, going by the text of the AHRA and the legislative record behind it) to download is certainly unauthorized and (per every court that's looked at it, e.g., Napster, Grokster, Aimster, etc) not within the fair use doctrine.
Still not accurate (Score:5, Informative)
This is significant because fair use depends on the purpose of the copying. Copying to put on your portable player would be a totally different situation under a fair use analysis than copying to give away to strangers on the internet.
At least in this case, they aren't trying to argue that all ripping is illegal--just this defendant's ripping. (And in other cases, they have said that ripping for your portable player is OK).
I believe that there are similar considerations if a defense under the Audio Home Recording Act, rather than under fair use is considered. The nature of the defendant and the reason for ripping would be relevant as to whether that covers him.
It's going to burn them either way... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they get mp3's from ripping ruled to be unauthorized usage, that will just drive another nail in the coffin of CD sales. Consumers will turn to digital download services and completely eschew physical media. Artists will see the dwindling usefulness of the record companies and go independent.
Either way, the RIAA member companies will lose out. It would be far better for them to compete in the new arena than to use litigation to drive their way of thinking down everyone's throat. If they continue to ignore the cluebat beating them over the head, they'll wind up in the same boat with other organizations that have tried a similar approach (*cough*SCO*cough*).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, you don't need their authorisation, so that's OK.
They are plainly unauthorized copies, no trickery (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately for most of us you don't need authorization for fair use purposes as you have the right to make such copies (depends on the law where you are of course).
However if you are using them for purposes that aren't covered by fair use then the fact they are unauthorized is very relevant as your copying was not permitted by right.
The RIAA aren't being tricky here, they are stating the plain truth.
Re:They are plainly unauthorized copies, no tricke (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an interesting quote from one of the legal briefs in the case:
Zombie News? (Score:3, Informative)
Is this the same retread story that's been making the rounds for the last two weeks?
Short summary: Guy ripped CD and placed MP3 in P2P shared directory. RIAA sues him for "making available" an "unauthorized copy". Media ignores first part and reports that RIAA is suing the guy for simply ripping a CD (how would they know if that's all he did?). Frenzied and completely incorrect stories are reported and posted to slashdot, with hundreds of comments posted by people who can't (or choose not to) read and correctly comprehend the actual events.
Will somebody please put a bullet in this undead zombie beast of a story? It seems to be submitted every day and the summary is damn near always wrong.
Article still gets it wrong. (Score:2)
The rips in the brief are unauthorized because they have been placed in the share directory. Here's how it breaks down:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A CD ripped to your hard drive for personal use: OK.
What if (thru Windows File Sharing), my hard drive itself is shared?? What about Administrative (C$) shares tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Irony (Score:2)
Actually, what the RIAA lawyers... (Score:2)
are doing is seeing if the judge is going to call them on the carpet for calling personal copying infringement.
The idea is that they want to establish a few things:
They -are- unauthorized. (Score:3, Insightful)
They ARE unauthorized copies. There really has NEVER been any debate about that. The label didn't specifically authorize them therefore they are unauthorized. ITS THAT SIMPLE.
That said, the ENTIRE POINT of fair use is to legalize 'unauthorized copies' in limited 'fair use' circumstances. Fair use, by definition, operates on unauthorized copies. You have to make an unauthorized copy in order for fair use to apply. If the copy was authorized you wouldn't need fair use -- because you've got explicit authorization directly from the rights holder.
The RIAA calling these cd rips unauthorized is about as salient as when they 'over' identify the defendant... if they mention that Jane Doe is a 35 year old woman who works as a bookkeeper, they are not suggesting that being 35 years old, a woman, or a bookkeeper are issues in the case, they are merely identifying the defendant.
Similiarly identifying the unauthorized songs ripped from CD by the defendant merely identifies the songs in question. The fact that they are 'unauthorized' vs 'authorized' is as irrelevant as the fact they were ripped from CD instead of Sirius/XM-Radio.
The judge certainly knows this. The lawyers certainly all know this. Maybe the defendant isn't aware, but that's why he should have a lawyer.
Knee-jerk reactions by bloggers who seize on irrelevant facts without knowing or understanding how copyright works is the real issue here. I propose we have another front page article... "prominent journalists and bloggers somehow don't know making a copy without explicit authorization results in an unauthorized copy, DUH!"
Certainly it's unauthorized ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not lying (Score:2)
Users don't care if ripping is "unauthorized" (Score:2)
RIAA changed their tune (Score:4, Informative)
"Unauthorized" != "Illegal" (Score:3, Insightful)
> ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'
They are 'unauthorized copies'. So are copies made under fair use. Unauthorized is not a synonym for illegal. It just means that you don't have the copyright owner's permission. However, there are many things you can legally do with a copy without the copyright owner's permission.
> While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market
> factor of fair use,...
You mean under the Audio Home Recording Act exception. "Fair use" is something else entirely (it is, though, an example of something you can legally do without the copyright owner's permission).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem wasn't the summary (of the previous /. article) - but the Washington Post article (referenced in the other /. post) - which was misleading.
Re:/. retraction? (Score:5, Informative)
"Fair use" I think you mean. They'll have a hard time convincing consumers that it is morally wrong to rip their discs: ripping is a pretty entrenched idea now. People like me that started out on vinyl "ripping" to reel-to-reel will never accept there's a damned thing wrong with that. The only hope they have is getting another rewrite of copyright law pushed through Congress, which is far more likely.
More and more, I see the RIAA as a major league loose cannon, with repercussions for the studios that I have to believe they haven't fully considered. I know the studios are just biding their time, waiting to see just how much the RIAA can win for them in terms of legal precedent, copyright modifications, and alterations in public attitude towards copyright infringement. Still, I can't help but think this is going to be self-defeating in the long run. I haven't bought any big studio music in twenty five years, and I don't plan to start. They've already lost me as customer, permanently. If they keep going the way they're going (lawsuits, threats and intimidation, high prices, poor quality) they're going to lose more.
Re:Because /. would lose it's sensationalist angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, fair use is cited as the reason that people can do what they want with purchased media for their own use (the law actually has many other applic