next, listening to a cd more than once is illegal

BULLSHIT.

my favorite part:

"the RIAA contends that ripping CDs leads to "viral" copyright infringement; a single disc can result in millions of copies if shared through a peer-to-peer service, the brief claims."

well...maybe they should just stop selling CDs, then this won't be an issue.....

soon if you happen to be at a friends place or somewhere public you will be allowed to only hear 90 seconds or less or a song that happens to be being playing, or expect a hefty fine

Holy shit---see you guys in prison . . . what a bunck of fucktards.

Holy shit---see you guys in prison . . . what a bunch of fucktards.

boycott. Don't buy the shit.

Read up on the DMCA. This has been 'illegal' for a while.

just pathetic ... if they weren't so evil you could almost feel sorry for the bastards

according to the attorney general, isn't taking advantage of the consumer by releasing inferior product at highly inflated prices against one's personal rights?

they should audit not only themselves but their clients for claiming royalties on ideas they do not create, and also taking advantage of their employees.

lastly, i guess it's back to making cassette tape copies to freely distribute to everyones' friends!

Is there a lawyer in the house? I looked at the PDF to which a link is provided above and here's what I found on page 15, starting on line 15 (or maybe 16):

Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format AND THEY ARE IN HIS [KAZAA] SHARED FOLDER, they are NO LONGER the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

[emphasis added]

I am not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, it seems to me the Plaintiffs (not the RIAA, but Atlantic Recording Corp.) are NOT claiming that EVERY rip of a CD track is unauthorized.

Calm the fuck down, people.

reader, that is quite interesting. what that insinuates is that the digital files, whence ripped, are therefore not protected by the RIAA?

Mat, I don't understand your question. Please restate it.

There's no difference between the RIAA and the Russian mob.

listening to a Dirty Projectors cd should be illegal...lock'em up and throw away the cd!!!

FREE MUSIC!!!

(from the fascists of the RIAA)

i agree with reader's reading.

also, the RIAA is one of the plaintiffs, they're just not named in the abbreviated caption on this document.

having read this a littel more closely, i don't think the RIAA is a plaintiff in this lawsuit. i think the comment attributed to teh RIAA must be in some other document and not the pdf linked to through the story.

alright Reader,

i was just saying that one could understand from that once a person creates and moves the files, they are no longer protected by the copyright, and therefore free to distribute. also, doesn't the copyright the labels hold just prevent one from making a profit. if said content is available for free, wouldn't all be null?

When does Daft Punk get sued?

is whipple named as a plantiff?

Atlantic Recording Corporation (a member of the RIAA, acting as such) is the Plaintiff. The RIAA doesn't hold the copyrights, the individual companies do.

The language that maintains that the CD rips are piracy are found right away on page 2. "...Defendant Howell possessed an 'unlawful copy' of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated..."
The fact that they are describing the copy, themselves, as "unlawful" is the story.

Page 15 goes into this further stating
"Defendent possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted sound recordings and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies..."

Again, note the distinction, both the dissemination and the copies themselves are considered unauthorized.

Not that this would be a big deal really. This is what the RIAA has done for ages. Any use they can't profit from is illegal. That said, please support your favorite non-RIAA artists, and buy their records while you go on with your RIAA boycott.

Home taping is killing music.

To Mat:

No, giving the copyrighted material away for free does not make it legal. Copyright in America automatically protects everything created since 1923, regardless of profit motive, or even if the creator of the work desires it. The author needs to explicitly draw up their own terms (a la Creative Commons license).

what?

so should i buy 128kbit itunes mp3s rather than ripping cd's i legally buy to 320kbit?

legal mp3 purchases have the worst sound quality.

Gratis Bill! that answered a lot in terms everyone can understand. danke for the simplification!

ripping cds into 320kbs mp3s is just plain dumb.

Bill: But where in that filing does it explicitly say that ANY mp3, in and of itself, is unauthorized? As far I as I could tell, the Plaintiffs only argue that when the Defendant placed the mp3s into his KaZaA shared folder is when they became unauthorized copies.

Mat: Bill answered your question but I'll point out that the Defendant didn't give away the mp3s for free. He exchanged them, or genuinely expected to exchange them, for other mp3s (albeit indirectly).

I'm no fan of major labels but as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It doesn't say that ANY mp3, in and of itself is unauthorized. These companies do sell their own MP3's (or otherwise encoded files) on different sites with various degrees of DRM (including some files completely DRM-free). What this complaint does say is that his copies were "unauthorized AND disseminated." That's a big difference from "the unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted materials."

It could be sloppy legal writing, but you'd expect the RIAA to bring a brief to the table that was as carefully worded as GZA's "Labels," just not nearly as exciting.

it's called space shifting. and it's perfectly legal to transfer your cds to your computer, just as it is legal to tape a tv show, or like us oldies used to do, tape your records. their argument is a loser, they know it.

Also, get the whole "free" thing out of the discussion. It is irrelevant to this discussion and seems to be muddling the issue.

Even if you lose tons of money and just give away music files willy nilly expecting nothing ever in return, you are still violating copyright law.

Bill: Just because the Plaintiffs are stating that the Defendant's mp3s are unauthorized doesn't mean they are saying that all ripped mp3s everywhere are unauthorized.

Anon. 12:37 AM: You dismiss the Plaintiffs' arguments unjustifiably. Your comment brings up a question for me, though. I know the Supreme Court ruled that it was O.K. for consumers to use VCRs to timeshift broadcast programming, but did the courts ever rule on archiving the timeshifted recordings after viewing them or viewing them more than once?

Ooops, I forgot to sign the comment posted at 12:48 AM (actually more like 1:10 AM).

Burning CD's is illegal now? Glad I still use cassettes. You'll never catch me you fascist pigs!
I love how the so many of the bourgeoise BV readers jump to the defense of the multi-nationals and their lawyers. Don't be afraid to let your true colors show, indie rockers.

Dicks. They're fucking themselves.

No, it doesn't. But the story is that they "claim CD rips are piracy in [the] lawsuit." Which it looks like they do.

If you really do feel like reading some Supreme Court decisions on copyright...

Selections (1952-1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/copyrt.htm

Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

I am an attorney who deals with copyright issues.

Ripping the CD by itself is not the "illegal act" they are talking about. It is ripping the CD and then actually disseminating it to another that is the "illegal act" in their eyes. You buy a CD--you own it and are therefor an "authorized user", so you can rip it on to you computer, your ipd, etc. No problem.

It's when you make a copy, whether through sharing ripped mp3 files, burning a CD for someone else, etc. that you are disseminating an unauthorized copy.

Not that I agree with them, but that's their beef.

"Not that I agree with them"

Is that a professional opinion or merely a personal one?

The "not that I agree with them" is a personal opinion.

Legally, they have a good case regarding the "dissemination" of material. It will be a tough battle for them 9the record industry) to hold anyone liable for burning a CD and giving it to a friend, etc. However, they're more likely to prevail over people who rip music and either (1)sell it in some form, or (2) post it to a web site that derives any advertising or subscription revenue.

No doubt. If that is what they are saying, then it's sloppy language. That could easily be the case. But we're also looking at a desperate industry that is afraid to give up any ground whatsoever and will gain every slight advantage they can. It's definitely an unlikely point to be decided in their favor, but who knows what can happen in the courts. Any knowledge of how the Circuits lean out in AZ way?

It's unlikely but given the RIAA's (and MPAA's) history with these issues, would it really surprise anyone if this is exactly what they are arguing? They tried to deem to iPod's forefather illegal (and the VCR), not so long ago. I think the starling thing is the balls they have. Further proof that if they had their way, there would be no room for fair use.

Well, the outcome will be interesting because the 9th Circuit (although generally very liberal), has been extremely very hesitant to redefine copyright law and usually just punts and says it's up to Congress to change the law if it so desires, which unfortunately works in favor of the RIAA.

"Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude. Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress."

RIAA=NAZI

The RIAA is basically the angriest middleman in the history of art offered for commerce.

They can sue and scream all they want- in 5 years the music industry as we know it will be gone.

And they will be looking for another life form to attach themselves to.

FUCK THE RIAA!!!

YEAH!!

Actually, the dissemination of MP3s is illegal because it infringes on the artists' ability to profit from their work by making free copies of their music available to potential purchasers. In actual practice, every time you get a file from a friend, it's a copy of the music for which the artist did not get paid. Now - disclaimer: I know the majors and the RIAA are NOT that interested in protecting the artists. However, that's what the law's INTENTION was. My personal take on it is that the major labels and the RIAA are greedily exploiting a law designed to protect artists. Big shock, huh?

What are you saying, Basia? The creator of a work should not be allowed to sell or otherwise assign the copyright to his work? I really don't see what the point of your comment is.

I think RIAA has totally, possibly intentionally, missed the entire boat and possibly the dock as well. I'd be willing to bet sales of 'best of', 'greatest hits', and 'live in concert' CDs is as strong as ever. I'm willing to also bet that it's the sales of the utter crap under the guise of 'new release' that's down. Who the hell wants to fork out $20 for a CD with one freakin' good song on it? Five years ago I switched over totally to 'best of' and 'live in concert' CDs to make sure I get at least 6 or 7 decent songs per CD. However, I am now advocating a total boycott of music CDs and have posted my position on my political MySpace page (www.MySpace.com/sandpaper4thesoul). I will buy no CD's in 2008. -SP4TS