The RIAA Isn't Suing Over Ripping Purchased CDs

The RIAA Isn't Suing Over Ripping Purchased CDs

Monday, December 31, 2007 - by Gregory Sullivan
Let's all calm down, shall we? There are a lot of news reports about the RIAA suing Jeffery Howell for ripping copies of his legally purchased music CDs for his own use.  But according to engadget, that's not the case at all; he's being sued for the plain old-fashioned crime of participating in illegal downloading.

As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "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, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?


Not hardly. The RIAA has never argued that no one has ever purchased the original copy of a song uploaded to a filesharing service. This isn't even new ground being covered here. The reason a copy of a legally purchased CD is called an "unauthorized copy" in a lawsuit is because it's given away to others to use without paying the copyright holder, not that it exists on your computer. The minute you've made a copy to give to someone else, Fair Use goes out the window.  It's easy to argue that the RIAA are unpleasant and you think that DRM is an outdated business model and so forth, but the one niggling detail you have to keep in mind is: They're right. 
Via: engadget | News Archive | Tags: RIAA, CD, DS, ping, aa
Login or Register to Comment

Comments

By on Dec 31, 2007

I have no problems with fair use policy and whatever... what I do have a problem with is that they go after mainly the little people instead of working and investing time into shutting down sites with ilegal content. Its pretty common knowledge that if people can get something for free they will. Its like finding 100 dollar bill on the street. Technically it belongs to the person who droped it but you "found it" so its yours.   Most of the big pirating doesnt take place anywhere in the US and is mostly done out of the country but yet we pay the price for it.. it just seems a bit rediculous to me.  Of course a lot of it has to do with pop culture. When I was younger in my teens it didnt bother me at all to download anything.. it didnt view it as stealing until I got older and begin to understand what I was doing. I can proudly say everything I own today is legal and paid for and honestly it does make me feel better.

By Iria on Dec 31, 2007

I'd disagree with engadget and this post. If you read through the engadget comments you'll see many correct the writer. When you read the supplemental brief itself, you will see they lable unauthorized copies as as ripped tracks. Nothing to do with uploading.

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use."

They are doing this because in this suit the defense is that the MP3 were ripped for personal use and were never uploaded.

In fact, in the Jammie Thomas case, Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation at Sony BMG, said during testimony that:

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for HIMSELF, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."

By Old School on Dec 31, 2007

Hi Iria-

Thanks for reading and commenting.

I read the comments, and they are all either inaccurate, or mostly beside the point. The defendant ripped a legit CD to mp3 format and put it in his shared KAZAA folder. The part of the complaint that is pertinent is:

"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."

Purchasing a copyrighted disk allows you to do certain things. Copying it and selling it or giving it away is not one of them. The RIAA is on fairly solid legal ground here.

By ikonoklast on Jan 2, 2008

The RIAA is missing one important point. Maybe CD sales are down because ppl don't want to pay inflated prices for what they deem, CRAP. I rarely listen to music anymore as I feel for years, nothing really GOOD has been issued. Even today's kids, listen to and buy Pink Floyd, Beatles, Stones, WHO, etc - if all the twenty and thirty-somethings I know is any indication. A lot of buyers use I-Tunes etc, because they can buy only the songs they like, at a good price. If I buy a CD based on airplay of one or two good songs, the rest of it may be crap in my opinion! I have been down that road many times in the past. I get annoyed when all this hoopla is centred around filesharing being the devil that is ruining the music sales.

Post a Comment