Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimmyJazz]

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15357

washingtonpost.com — This sort of legal attack will lead to the end of “fair-use” and back up copies of anything. I can seriously see this extended to the copying machine too.

"Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industrys 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."

I don't know how they can honestly or effectively go through with this case; they're essentially gonna be categorizing all tech-savy music fans criminals. Though the doubts in my mind make me think they might win this case, knowing what they've gotten away with in the past.

[Jackie Blue]

In other news: The sky is falling!

[FUBAR]

that is really sad for so many different reasons.

It seems the RIAA is using their power to create lawsuits against individuals as a scare tactic.  They have to know that there is no possible way for them to stop content sharing completely, I think this is just another ploy cooked up by the association to minimize their "losses".  If they were serious about it they would go after the distributors like torrent trackers and IRC fserves, not the end user.

[Ballard]

You're completely missing the point here.

That Hannah Montana CD you just legally bought at a store and burned to your iTunes. THAT'S NOW ILLEGAL. YOU'VE COMMITTED A CRIME! YOU'RE GOING TO JAIL!

[Tom]

Hannah Montana 

[FUBAR]

I understand that is what's happening, but I am just saying TO ME that's what it looks like the RIAA is doing by going after an individual rather than a larger or more visible group.

And who the hell would listen to Hannah Montana?

[Cernunnos]

Clearly you are not a ten year old girl.

[FUBAR]

clearly...although I've been told that inside all of us there is a 10 year old girl trying to get out. hrm

[Jackie Blue]

There's a 10 year old girl trying to get out of my closet.

[Cernunnos]

I was waiting for that.

[Arwedda]

I read it as "There's a ten year old girl trying to get out of my chest."

[FUBAR]

I read it as "There's a ten year old girl trying to get out of my chest."

hehehe that would mean the little girl is actually an alien

[Spinless]

On a slightly related note, whenever I read Zerodrone's post, I imagine John Hurt reading them from a giant leather bound book while smoking a pipe, sitting along in front of a log fire, all alone in a giant dark mansion. There is usually thunder and lightning in the background.

This makes every single one of his post completely amazing.

Oh, and ontopic:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHcan't happen. No way.

[imapiratearg]

Next, they're going to file lawsuits against people who lend out cds to one another.

[Hat]

Honestly, even if this law passes, they're not going to be confiscating computers and using them as evidence and then erasing them, and I'd like to see who would allow this bill to become law considering its anachronistic and just plain silly. For years and years and years (until last year I believe) a law similar to this one had been in place where it was illegal to copy a CD to a computer, or even videotape something from the television. Yet in the 15 or so years that this law existed, there was not a single charge or even arrest based on it, its the digital version of those silly laws you hear about old towns having that aren't applicable anymore, you're not going to jail for striking the sidewalk with a metal object.

[monkandmovies13]

Next, they're going to file lawsuits against people who lend out cds to one another.

I have a friend whose dad is a lawyer and sometimes deals with stuff like this, and he doesn't let her borrow CDs from friends. When he goes out and buys a CD, he lets her listen to it then she has to give it back without putting it on her computer.

Sheesh.

If he knew how much music and how many CDs I burn her, I don't think I'd be allowed in that house again.

[Jackie Blue]

On a slightly related note, whenever I read Zerodrone's post, I imagine John Hurt reading them from a giant leather bound book while smoking a pipe, sitting along in front of a log fire, all alone in a giant dark mansion. There is usually thunder and lightning in the background.

I'm not sure why you feel that way, but I'm taking it as a compliment.

Whenever I read tommy's posts, I imagine a drunken sot in an abandoned pub nursing a pint and muttering to himself.

I intend that as a compliment, as well.

[ALoveSupreme]

Corner him. Ask him why, and when he's answered, ask "why" again. Repeat until he sees what he's doing is pointless.

I guess my confusion is how do they "catch" someone who has uploaded a CD?  It's not exactly like file-sharing where it's traceable through online connections, IPs, or other web-based information.  Or, is it just another thing  you are nailed with if caught downloading?

[SeanBateman]

At no point have I ever thought the RIAA could not get any worse.

[Johnny C]

It's tough to out-evil Lucifer time and time again but the RIAA have no interest resting on their laurels.

[Patrick]

They have the internet to keep up with.

[doki]

see, this is absolutely crazy.  you've bought the CD, this is doublestamping.

[Jackie Blue]

When I was 11, I wanted to be Ford Prefect when I grew up.

[schimmy]

It's not that great.

[Juxtaposition]

Even the iTunes store rules say you're allowed to make a reasonable amount of personal copies of anything you buy there. This simply doesn't make sense. I have a feeling that this will just make people less likely to try to follow the rules simply because it's the law. I mean, if you're already breaking the law by having music on your computer that you bought on CD, then why avoid breaking the law again and just downloading it online?

What do they expect people to do? Buy a physical CD and buy a second copy from itunes or amazon or someone? Is it still legal to sync your ipod with your itunes library, or is that off limits too?

This is just ridiculous.

[yossarian07]

So essentially if this law passes my music will go from 25% legal to entirely illegal.
I really hope that dosen't bump me up from a misdemeanor to a felony.

[monkandmovies13]

Hey guys, I think we can all breathe a little easier now

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

[Patrick]

I won't breathe easy until the RIAA pretty much just fucks off. If I ever make it big as a recording artist I am going to stay the hell away from those guys just to spite them.

Srsly, free music downloads? Sounds like good free advertisement for live shows, if you ask me.

[Orbert]

"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?"

Help me, I'm stupid.  I've been through that little section there three times, and I'm still not sure what it means.

It sounds like it's saying that presumably, ripping a copy of a CD you own is fair use, but has never been tested in court as such.  I follow that. So the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot because "a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal."  Meaning it will remain untested in court unless/until the RIAA tries to argue that ripping a copy of your CD is not fair use? Isn't that what's happening right now?

[monkandmovies13]

That confused me too. I was just referring to the clear, straightforward part at the top that said they were suing him for illegal downloading, not ripping CDs.

[Tom]

That would be pretty pointless if your judges could make common law, wait can they. I understand it but I can't figure out how to explain it.

[GenericName]

Hadnt this been ruled on before?

EDIT: Wait, never mind, syncing to portable music players were what I was thinking of.

[Thrillho]

I think I saw this on another forum and someone pointed out that by this logic, we're all stealing the internet, since by having it on our screen a temporary copy of whatever website we're looking at is on our computer, meaning we have an illegal copy of copyrighted material on our system.

[öde]

Excuse me while I copyright this post, you terrorist funding hippies.

[Inlander]

Excuse me while I copyright this post, you terrorist funding hippies.

Too slow, it's mine!

[Johnny C]

Sorry, I've already copyrighted the act of posting.

I expect my royalty cheques in the mail any day now.

[My Aim Is True]

"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?"

Help me, I'm stupid.  I've been through that little section there three times, and I'm still not sure what it means.

It sounds like it's saying that presumably, ripping a copy of a CD you own is fair use, but has never been tested in court as such.  I follow that. So the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot because "a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal."  Meaning it will remain untested in court unless/until the RIAA tries to argue that ripping a copy of your CD is not fair use? Isn't that what's happening right now?

let me break it down.

1. Copying a CD onto your ocmputer, without shairng it, is PROBABLY LEGAL, but has never been tested.

2. The RIAA now wants to say that it is illegal to do so.

3. The legality of copying for personal use will now be tested.

4. A judge will rule that it IS legal to copy a CD for yourself. The RIAA will lose that specific point, which would not have ahppened if they hadn't brought it up.



the only way that the RIAA's argument here makes any sense, hypothetically, is if they claim that after putting a CD you own onto your ipod, you must delete the copy off the computer. Otherwise, they are implying that ipods are illegal.

[Patrick]

If they do rule in a way that makes iPods illegal, Apple's gonna be -fucked-

[Tom]

Poor them, they were just startin' to really enjoy fuckin' us.

[Inlander]

If they do rule in a way that makes iPods illegal, Apple's gonna be -fucked-

If it came to that, I'm pretty sure Apple has the resources to fight 'em in the courts.

[IronOxide]

My money's on Apple's legal team beating the RIAA if it came to that, which it won't.

[Jackie Blue]

the only way that the RIAA's argument here makes any sense, hypothetically, is if they claim that after putting a CD you own onto your ipod, you must delete the copy off the computer. Otherwise, they are implying that ipods are illegal.

Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".

[sandman263]

I'm waiting for the day the RIAA, not paying attention to their legalese jargon while creating a suite of new lawsuits, make it illegal to buy CDs.

[StaedlerMars]

Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".

You can do that? Stores actually accept that?

[valley_parade]

I don't know about CDs, but I know people that do it with books.

Pretty sketchy if you ask me.

[Jackie Blue]

All the record stores around here accept opened new CDs, as long as you have a receipt and it's been less than 10 days or so.  Some stores limit you to store credit for them but I think the major chains will let you return pretty much anything.

[Thrillho]

the only way that the RIAA's argument here makes any sense, hypothetically, is if they claim that after putting a CD you own onto your ipod, you must delete the copy off the computer. Otherwise, they are implying that ipods are illegal.

Eh, they could also argue that people can put a CD on their computer and then return the CD to the record store, which I refer to as "poor man's Napster".

I'm not a big fan of downloading, but I've always thought this was somehow a bit more of a dickish thing to do.

[Jackie Blue]

Actually, if you buy a CD and then return it, the label and artist still get the money, it's the record store who has to eat the cost or re-sell it as a "used" copy.  So as long as you do it to a major chain store, I think it's morally a bit less dickish than downloading an album.

[ALoveSupreme]

Some stores limit you to store credit for them but I think the major chains will let you return pretty much anything.

I have never had this experience with any media item (DVD, video game, etc.).  And as a casual employee of the Target Corporation, I can tell you that definitely does not fly there.

[Jackie Blue]

It must vary by location.  The Gamestop here lets you return games and DVDs, I know Wal-Mart lets you return basically anything.  I know someone who returned an opened PS2, no questions asked.