Ripping CDs is illegal?!?

[Alex Franke]

"the [RIAA] maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

<rant>Now that just ticks me off... Oh, and I'm sure Janet Jackson and Aerosmith really need to get richer (if they even see most of the money) by demanding a nearly quarter million dollars from Jammie Thomas for allegedly making a few files accessible to others. That punishment does not seem to fit the crime at all. </rant>

Thanks for listening. hmpf.

[os1kne]

This will surely be the end of the ipod, zune, etc. People will have to repurchase all of their music through itunes, etc. in order to get a "legal" mp3.

I can understand them going after people that make songs, videos, etc. available to people that haven't purchased the media through a channel that compensates the artist, producer, etc. - but it's a bit extreme to call someone a thief just because they prefer a more portable way to listen to the music that they've legally purchased.

My wife's ipod probably has songs from over 50 legally purchased cd's on it (and I'm sure there are others that have music from 500+ cd's). It's a lot more convenient to carry an ipod, than a load of cd's and a cd player to play them in.

[Ed62]

It's gonna be a real sad day if the court decides I can't transfer my music from CDs to my mp3 player. I sure ain't gonna pay twice for music.

Ed

[JR]

The RIAA's assertion is a long way from being the law of the land. In fact, it was established long ago that individuals who made copies of a recording for personal use were not violating copyright laws. The X factor here is probably whether your computer is part of a media sharing combine (a la Napster). That is probably illegal and enforceable.

You'd better take a chill pill, guys. This issue is going to get a lot more contentious before it settles down. You don't want to blow all your good rants at this stage!

JR

[prlundberg]

The RIAA's assertion is a long way from being the law of the land. In fact, it was established long ago that individuals who made copies of a recording for personal use were not violating copyright laws. The X factor here is probably whether your computer is part of a media sharing combine (a la Napster). That is probably illegal and enforceable.

You'd better take a chill pill, Ed. This issue is going to get a lot more contentious before it settles down. You don't want to blow all your good rants at this stage!

JR

I agree. As far as I know, you can do whatever you would like with music you own, provided it is for personal use.

[prlundberg]

I also think the Minnesota case was ridiculous. Yes, what she did was illegal, and yes, she should be punished.

But $9,250 for each song that was shared? $220,000 for sharing 24 songs, which is about thirty bucks worth of music? The fines are not in line with the crime IMO.

[crokett]

I have most of my music collection copied onto my computer. Been doing that for years. The RIAA has been saying for almost as many years that copying CDs to your computer is illegal. Although AFIK the Fair Use Act says it is legal.

[Russianwolf]

copy it to an external harddrive. It's not technically on the computer, just being played through it.

Same as someone copying an original cassette tape to prevent it from being damaged. as long as they maintain ownership of the originals, then you haven't broken the law.

[LCHIEN]

what the RIAA wants as the law and what is the law is two different things unless of course their highly paid lobbiests get their way with our congressmen and women.

It has been the copyright practice that copies of music as long as its for your personal use are OK; this comes from the days of LPs and cassette tapes and has been carried on through CDs and writeable CDs, MP3s, and computers. However, the RIAA is at least partially upset because ulike LP to Casette, now your copies are just as good as the originals.

I'm sure the RIAA is shooting for those who copy the data and make them available over networks... they are also concerned about those who copy and make pirate versions available at low cost commercially. I can understand that and sympathise with them some. But I think that there will be a tremendous backlash if they try to go after those who copy to their home system or Ipods, even if they really don't like the practice.

What you do within the confines of your home, your home network (if reasonably configured to limit access to public netowrks) and you r personal protable electronics should not only be private but Not accessible for discovery or reporting to the RIAA.

The real dilemma for the future is when we have unlimited home storage and fast netowrks, instead of Ipods with local storgae we'll have iPhones that wireless connect to our home networks and anyone in your family who can connect to the home net can play any music we own... so who is the public and who is not?

The problem with many laws is that they are designed to deal with the present and recent past and not well thought out for the future (which of course, we can't always predict that well anyway). You better keep an eye on the laws, the lawmakers and the RIAA. Ultimately no matter how many favors the RIAA lobbyists does for the lawmakers, they report to you, you need to let them know you won't stand for monkeying restricting our rights for using the music and that includes copying without restriction for personal use. The RIAA given unfettered reach would have us pay each time we hummed the tune.

[maxparot]

The RIAA may be opening a can of worms they will not like. The law is an ever evolving thing based on the societies acceptance. If they continue on the present course, given the evolving social climate. Then changes to copyright laws that withdraw and restrict the rights of copyright holders. Thereby protecting consumers and computers/internet users may be on the horizon.

[LarryG]

The X factor here is probably whether your computer is part of a media sharing combine (a la Napster). That is probably illegal and enforceable.

Another factor is whether the original CD and a copy on an iPod or a computer can be listened to by different people at the same time. If you're listening to CCR's "Chronicle" on your iPod while riding the bullet train across France, and LOYL is listening to your actual, legally-purchased copy of the "Chronicle" CD while tooling around Thousand Oaks in whatever she drives, that's really no different than if you'd burned a copy of a CD and given it away to someone. My sh*thouse law degree says that would probably be illegal and enforceable, too.

Here I will stipulate that in no way am I expressing sympathy for the RIAA's position on this issue. I agree with Max: they might want to be careful what they wish for on this one. Still, their basic problem is same as it's always been; it's the one involving the slippery slope. As soon as they concede that any one form of copying is legal, their dike has sprung a serious leak.

[Alex Franke]

The RIAA may be opening a can of worms they will not like.

Indeed... If a "rip to hard drive" case goes to trial and the court says, "fair use," then I guess the RIAA will have to stop saying it's illegal. I think politics are entering the game here and they're dancing around the fringes of the main issues -- picking off some low hanging fruits -- to build a better case once the big issues come to trial.

What bugs me is that an organization as bossy and trigger-happy as the RIAA is going around saying "it's illegal." Regardless of the case law, it's like they're saying, "Oh, you're breaking the law alright, and you need to know that. We're being kind to let it slide as long as we have. But you just better hope we dont get you in our sights, though, because we'll show up with machine guns, take away your children, and burn your house down if you piss us off!"

They're making it sound like they are the law.

[doncook7]

unfortunately the Washington Post left out the part that the RIAA said it was illegal since the copies were in a SHARED folder. Store them in an unshared folder and all is fine again.

read all about it here... http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839170-7.html

[Alex Franke]

unfortunately the Washington Post left out the part that the RIAA said it was illegal since the copies were in a SHARED folder. Store them in an unshared folder and all is fine again.

read all about it here... http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839170-7.html

Ah, so then the world hasn't turn upside down. Thank God for that.

Here's another I found: http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml

Beckerman seems to be saying that by saying "unauthorized" the RIAA means illegal -- but that need not be the case. It's perfectly legal to rip your CDs, even if it's not authorized. It's well established that ripping a CD for personal backup purposes is perfectly legal, even if it's not authorized.

[Rand]

The record companies are having a difficult time dealing with the fact that their business model is obsolete.

All of the lawsuits etc. are really just the death throes of an industry that got fat ripping off artists and consumers alike and is now seeing it all go away. I don't feel sorry for them one bit.