RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized' 175
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."
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 directory holding all these "backups" is shared with millions over the Internet:
then it is no longer "fair use", and RIAA is right to come
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: (Score:2)
Sure — as long as the license of "it" allows for such a method, or if the method falls under "fair use", or some other license-overwriting principle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A guy ripped a CD, which is unauthorized but legal for backup purposes according to fair use. However he put it in his shared directory, which is NOT backing up.
You're letting them get away with their "making available" argument and be able to level charges without any real evidence of a crime taking place.
Just because it is in a shared directory does not constitute actual sharing. It may just be there for display purposes, a way of showing people what he has, for braggadocio. Until someone tries to download it, no illegal copying takes place (unauthorized !(always)= illegal). And until someone tries, you can't know whether anyone could actually succeed.
And if su
Oh, PLEASE... This is getting really, really old. (Score:2)
Infringement is violating the right established by the government to further the production of the arts in which a party has the right to control the reproduction and distribution of a so protected work. If I infringe upon that right, all I've done is usurped your right to control that production and distr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're explictly going against Copyright law (Score:2)
This could easily come back to haunt them in a court of law, if it's able to be presented as evidence of intent or behaviour. Somehow I think they'll get away with it though. A company with enough time and lobbying power on its hands can easily direct (usually pervert) the cause of jus
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:2)
Not everyone is willing to get a very expensive non-destructive book scanner or to cut off the binding and run the pages through a self-feeding scanner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, the raw revenue of new music is probably greater then old music, but in terms of profit, it doesn't do nearly as well, as it actually costs money to make.... Worse, new music is also often very short-lived as moods shift. Certain parts of their back catalog (e.g. Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Beach Boys, etc.) make up a fairly stable long tail that they can always count on to bail them out when "shift happens".
Beatles compilations have been known to sell as many as 10 million copies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no reason why rupping a CD to MP3 is any different than recording an LP to yape, and neither does anyone else who doesn't work for an RIAA label, or is stupid enough to believe their utter bullshit.
-mcgrew
Re: (Score:2)
1. Create recording company
2. Publish a recording
3. Find someone who format-shifted your recording
4. Sue them and lose, just to get a precedent on the books
5. Humanity profits
Cost to start up a company, make one recording, distribute it, hire an incompetent lawyer and declare bankruptcy (in that order) can't b
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 Authorities can assume it is illegal, giving the police powers of arrest for the cassettes in people's cars that they taped from CDs using equipment that they bought in good faith for that purpose. In practice, however, so many people are doing it that nobody
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something isn't definitely an offence doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it if a constable thinks it looks like an offence, and detained while they work out whether or not it was an offence or whether you may have done something
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's the next logical step.
Re:A sad sign of the times... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the RIAA is allowed to make frivolous statements in court? I remember that the last time (in 1992) I had a conversation with someone at the IRS about my income tax, one of my arguments was rejected on the basis that it was "frivolous" (i.e. completely meaningless), and the person there told me that
Re: (Score:2)
(And as a postscript, even if the word were truly me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we are! How else do you explain Vista UAC?!
Cancel or Allow?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, I've spent (rough ballpark guess) $15,000 over the past 25 years or so to amass my entirely legal music collection [zycha.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the Betamax decision, for example, the Supreme Court differentiated between "time-shifting," which it ruled to be a fair use, and "library-building," which was not. Both are personal uses, but one is a fair use and one is not.
Also, look at Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act, which immunizes certain home audio copying -- you can't imm
What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course it's unauthorized (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Will it run Linux on a Beowulf cluster in Soviet Russia?
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:
The phrasing that they used seems to indicate that the MP3 files were authorized until they were placed into the shared folder. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that this means absolutely noth
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:
Thus, the very same ripped MP3 file can go from "authorized" to "unauthorized" just through the act of making it available for sharing. "Personal use" is the big deal here, and I think everybody will still continue to argue over what "person
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. While from time to time various record label mouthpieces have acknowledged that ripping for personal use is okay, agreed that it'd be nearly impossible to get one of them to sit in the stand and state that it's officially "authorized."
The point I was trying to make is that the record label was not stating that the mere act of ripping is illegal. Some may draw that inference from the Engadget's use of "authorized" but as you correctly point out, they are different things.
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 than many are not aware of?
Re: (Score:2)
"What if (thru Windows File Sharing), my hard drive itself is shared?? What about Administrative (C$) shares than many are not aware of?"
I can't answer this one for you. It's one of those Schroedinger things: it all depends on what the court decides. But first, the record companies would have to catch you, and then opt to take you to court.
Practically speaking, I wouldn't worry. If you're sharing your music with your workmates (as many, many people do), I suppose your biggest risk would be a disgruntl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to actually do they'd at minimum need to download the file in question. Using a client hacked to never upload. Even then all they'd be able to say is "This material was made available by a machine with that IP address..."
Re: (Score:2)
This is what they did in the case against that woman who actually went all the way to court without settling. This totally pisses me off, since they can't prove that I'm the one who did the download. Who's to say my machine wasn't totally pwned by some remote hacker? Perhaps a thief snuck in while I was at work, or a drunk friend at a party used my computer (or a sober friend for that matter).
This is the same thing that pisses m
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA is essentially free to assert unauthorized copies are illegal... its up to the defendant to prove they aren't.
That doesn't violate the presumption of innocence... because of course the defendant himself is presumed innocent of wrongd
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
put your money where your mouth is RIAA (Score:2)
Is this slander/libal? (Score:2)
so, will the judge recuse himself? (Score:2)
Paradox? (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant "ironically". Or even, "counterproductively". But "paradoxically"? No.
No, the cat doesn't "got my tongue". (Score:2, Funny)
> files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA
> is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'
Apparently Engadget is confused as to what a "backup" is for and what a "shared directory" is for.
May I quote from a Speedy Gonzolez cartoon, where the fat oaf cat is looking for something to put out his friend, on fire. He grabs a bucket:
"P - E - T - R -
A bit of common sense here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: Unauthorized Copies Make Baby Jesus Cry (Score:2)
"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).
That "Shared" Directory (Score:2)
Would someone just go out and metaphorically shoot these guys so that we can just be done with them please.
Format Shifting (Score:2)
You format shift when you place a CD in a drive and turn pits into a stream of digital bits.
You format shift when any physical medium is transformed into compressions and rarefactions in the air beyond the speaker surface.
You format shift when your ear drums translate compressions and rarefactions into nerve impulses.
The whole concept of listening to music is a series of format shifts.
I buy CD's... (Score:2)
If this is illegal too I might as well just get the music off some file share network.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy from a place like iTunes, there is some form of control, and in the future they can alter the form of control. Power is in their hands.
I think the whole premise that record companies want to continue to sell media is flawed. It costs them money to produce the medi
Yeah but if you're not buying from their 20 client (Score:2)
After a little research I can tell you that its:
* Arista
* BMG
* Capitol Records
* Elektra
* Fonovisa
* Interscope
* Lava
* Loud
* Maverick
* MGM
* Motown
* Priority
* Sony
* UMG
* Universal
* Virgin
Just don't buy any music from any of these companies and you should be safe.
Re:Yeah but if you're not buying from their 20 cli (Score:2)
La Face
Atlantic
Warner Bros
Why buy CDs anymore? (Score:2)
Seems to me they just took away another reason to buy a CD. If I can buy from iTunes or other online service, sync my iPod to that or make playlists and burn CDs but face the threat of lawsuits for buying and ripping a CD of the same material and then doing the same things with it, why should I buy any more CDs?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Because /. would lose it's sensationalist angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "professional".. and while you're at it, define 'real journalism'.
There are no real active peer reviewers anywhere, and no real consequences for printing falsehoods unless they're just totally false and against someone very powerful. If Dan Rather hadn't actually shown those fake Bush Nat'l Guard [wikipedia.org] records on national television (60 minutes), would anybody ha
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand, the iTunes songs I have purchased are authorized to be played on up to FIVE computers (and no technical limit on the number of iPods). I don't think that it matters if one computer belongs to my son, another to my wife, an
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 applications, but that's what is most relevant here.) Not too many people I know, and not many on Slashdot, believe that fair use implies a license to commit copyright infringement on a massive scale, because it doesn't. Whether or not you believe that Fair Use
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy them used... (Score:2)
Buy it used. Then rip, mix, burn...for your own personal consumption, of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the reason libraries exist is that they predate copyright. If they didn't already exist it would probably be impossible to "invent" them now.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because if push came to shove the RIAA would lose any such battles. Anyway their current tactics, intended for use against individuals, probably just wouldn't be much use against other corporates.