RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs

[randomnut]

The RIAA can kiss my ass.

I've ripped ALL my cds so I can listen to them on the move. Come and sue me.

[metallithrax]

depend, cause (in the uk anyway) they need a special license to play music, have that then they are ok.

There are ongoing cases regarding this, companies with a radio for their workers getting sued. Apparently if you play music on your PC at work and the person next to you can hear it, you need a licence.

[evo_spook]

There are ongoing cases regarding this, companies with a radio for their workers getting sued. Apparently if you play music on your PC at work and the person next to you can hear it, you need a licence.

Yes thats what was in my mind, the recent story of a charity getting told they need a special licence to have there radio one.

Technically, how would that work with a family in a car, there can be 4 people listerning to that, even worse if they have a ipod connected, where do the music orgs stop?

[ATLien_0]

i wonder how the riaa listens to their music?

[Eric Veteran]

Next thing you know, there will be the TVAA (Television Assn. of America) who will prevent bars from displaying NFL games with some alliance of the 2 organizations.

It is illegal to publiclly display anything like that already without permission from the copyright holders. Bars that show sporting events without the broadcaster's permission ARE violating the law.

[sathenzar]

+1

And I still can't see how making a copy is illegal. Like when watching a NFL game, they have that disclaimer that says you need our permission blah blah blah, but where on CDs does it say you can't for YOUR OWN reasons, not to give to other people.

P.S. In the article it says ok...so? Who is the RIAA? They are not the government, they are just a group of people, they don't make laws. If I put on my website "Every time you eat a candy bar, your fingers will fall off" and make that sound professional :rofl: then does that become law? No! Its just some cracked out people with too much money and big heads, they believe that they are the law and no one is going to stop them. We need the real government to get in on this.

lol that was great. I completely agree. The RIAA is stupid. They need to get off their high horse and realize no one is going to bow to them. I'm going to rip CDs' to my computer and transfer them to my Zune all day that's why I bought them...to listen to it wherever I go...just maybe? Nah that can't be it I must of just bought the CD for the fine cover art like all other americans must do.

[Eric Veteran]

i wonder how the riaa listens to their music?

Hopefully by shoving it where the sun doesn't shine. ;)

[metallithrax]

Yes thats what was in my mind, the recent story of a charity getting told they need a special licence to have there radio one.

Technically, how would that work with a family in a car, there can be 4 people listerning to that, even worse if they have a ipod connected, where do the music orgs stop?

For the car question, I think you may be covered by your BBC Licence on that one.

[APH-Alex]

Heh, that's why I live in Canada. I've only ever paid for 2 CDs. :p If anything, my piracy would only delay an artist from purchasing a platinum plated Ferrari.. so, I don't really care. :p

It's total bull**** though that you can't rip a CD, I mean, if it's for personal use, it should be okay. Not that any of this matters to me very much, but for those Americans down there, I feel sad. I hope Canada doesn't get like that (by "like that" I mean with the RIAA and stuff, not trying to insult the USA.)

Edited December 30, 2007 by APH-Alex

[HideAndGoatse]

They're not making laws up, they're stating existing law.

But the whole point of this is that they are not. They took an existing law, twisted it a bit, and are using their so called power to force it upon people.

The bottom line is that it is not illegal to go to a store, buy a cd, then rip it on your computer for your own listening pleasure.

I understand this lawsuit is because he ripped them on his computer then shared them, but some people are talking about just ripping.

You know what, we need to just get everyone and go to the RIAA HQ (Which is located conveniently inside a volcano in Hawaii). We can talk all we want and vent are anger here, but I want to actually do something! I know there are lots of websites that do this, like call your congressman or some ****, but I want have a public display, and call them out, with all cameras rolling, in front of EVERYONE, and ask them questions, see how they respond.

Edited December 30, 2007 by Bekabam

[betasp]

The bottom line is that it is not illegal to go to a store, buy a cd, then rip it on your computer for your own listening pleasure.

It is not legal either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

According to the RIAA, fair use does not apply to their medium.

[HideAndGoatse]

It is not legal either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

According to the RIAA, fair use does not apply to their medium.

But how can they just say it doesn't apply! Its god damn LAW! If they were serious about wanting to stop piracy and find the big players behind everything, why do they have to keep looking for loopholes to do it.

[ATLien_0]

i dont get why these laws werent adjusted when ripping cds to computer/burning/syncing to mp3 became available. Basically to truly enforce this people would have to not be allowed to do this. Kind of hard to enforce when that is out lifestyle now. The riaa cant win on this because they would have to go to microsoft/apple/etc an make them change windows media player/itunes not be able to ripp or sync

[markwolfe Veteran]

But how can they just say it doesn't apply! Its god damn LAW! If they were serious about wanting to stop piracy and find the big players behind everything, why do they have to keep looking for loopholes to do it.

"Fair use" is not, as you so eloquently put it, a "god damn LAW". It is an accepted exception to copyright enforcement in certain circumstances. Please don't come on here and be so forcefully wrong.

If something has not been expressly granted nor forbidden by law or contract, then it is legally nebulous until such time as it is tested in a court of law.

[gollux]

But how can they just say it doesn't apply! Its god damn LAW! If they were serious about wanting to stop piracy and find the big players behind everything, why do they have to keep looking for loopholes to do it.

Funny thing about the whole discussion here. No one really seems to have a grasp on the following:

1) Please show the exact law that states you have the right to rip a track from a CD and store it elsewhere. Oops, there isn't one.

2) One argument that you can deals with a few rulings and copyright law and the theory of "Fair Use". Please cite precedent cases and rulings where this has been established for ripping CD tracks. Oops, not sure I can find them.

3) Another argument that you can deals with a case ruling about being able to use a video recorder to timeshift or make portable copyrighted materials to either view later or in another location. Once again, please cite precedent cases and rulings where this has been established to apply to ripping CD tracks. Oops, once again, I think we need a really good lawyer to go back and see if there were any cases and rulings establishing this.

Our common law legal system is based on laws and thereafter an established body of works known as case law that establishes precedent for trying similar subsequent cases. Lawyers are paid to research established laws, regulations and especially case law to represent their client.

Before anyone fires up the flame thrower, really think about it.

If the "Legality" of unauthorized copying of CD tracks has not been established by previous court cases and there are no specific laws giving you that right, then lawyers will try to bring cases where they can get a ruling on it. Internally, the law system is forced to vote one way or the other until a majority of cases establish whether it is legal or not to have unauthorized copies of CD tracks for personal use.

This is where you need to take your blinders off, get in touch with and support lawyers that are taking on the RIAA at this time. As consumers, we need some really good lawyers working for us to establish the precedent that ownership of a CD gives us a right to personal non-shared copies because what you see in action is the RIAA trying to establish by legal precedent that it is illegal to copy CD tracks for your personal use (no sharing at all, for your private use on your own equipment).

[Black Hawk]

"Fair use" is not, as you so eloquently put it, a "god damn LAW". It is an accepted exception to copyright enforcement in certain circumstances. Please don't come on here and be so forcefully wrong.

If something has not been expressly granted nor forbidden by law or contract, then it is legally nebulous until such time as it is tested in a court of law.

US Code: title 17, Chapter 1, ? 107

It's also been tested in the court of law with Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co. and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

[Eric Veteran]

The simple fact about CD "fair use" is this: the RIAA is a huge pack of ravenous lawyers. If they were able to have a ban on CD ripping enforced then iTunes, WinAmp, WMP, and every other commercially available media player in the US would not have a ripping feature... ;) I think the real issue in this court case is that you CANNOT rip a CD you own and give the files to someone else, which I think is fair. If you want music, either buy it or find someone that will give you their music free legally, like the Radiohead CD.

[GNRambo]

They arent suing anymore, just being jerks about it apparently

Engadget source via Digg

[primexx]

The RIAA can kiss my ass.

I've ripped ALL my cds so I can listen to them on the move. Come and sue me.

exactly.

The RIAA just tries so hard not to be taken seriously all the time, it's amazing how many people still takes them seriously.

[SacrificialSoldier]

So... I dont give a crap what the RIAA says and will not stop downloading, ripping or sharing my music because of this. But..... How would one legally put music on their iPod if ripping is illegal? Explain that one.....

[betasp]

US Code: title 17, Chapter 1, ? 107

It's also been tested in the court of law with Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co. and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Why the RIAA believes this does not apply to you ripping CDs. Neither of the cases cited have anything to do with ripping, they have to do with the definition of a parody.

[markwolfe Veteran]

US Code: title 17, Chapter 1, ? 107

It's also been tested in the court of law with Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co. and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

I stand corrected.

While it was never originally included in copyright law, other court rulings created the codes you linked to, which form the basis of general law.

[Lasker]

If the guy took this collection of 2,000 songs to share to the world then I am with RIAA, now if the guy ripped the cd's to put it in his PC to listening, I think the RIAA need to calm down and stop these ridiculous lawsuits that the only thing they get is more hatred to RIAA from their own customers, this is a company who don't care about the people who bought their cd's, they will do anything for the money. I hope someday, I want to see the RIAA be destroy and be remembered as a nightmare.

[Black Hawk]

... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Why the RIAA believes this does not apply to you ripping CDs. Neither of the cases cited have anything to do with ripping, they have to do with the definition of a parody.

I was responding to markjensen's claim that fair use wasn't law.

Interesting:

However, in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., Don Verrilli, representing MGM stated:

"And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward."

Source

[CelticWhisper]

The RIAA can kiss my ass.

I've ripped ALL my cds so I can listen to them on the move. Come and sue me.

Same here. I've ripped all of mine to FLAC and have them stored on a 300GB FireWire disk. The RIAA (really just a front for record companies like Sony, BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner, don't buy their records, find out which ones are safe at riaaradar.com) is welcome to come and take it, but their thugs WILL be shot on sight as intruders in my home if I catch them. We can just see if copyright law holds more weight than the 2nd amendment. And I have decorative swords and knives, as well as a whole kitchen full of various-and-sundry delightfully sharp and pointy things in case I run out of ammo playing pop-the-copyright-gestapo-goon.

Seriously, though (and I was only half kidding there), if they want to tell me I can't rip my CDs (95% of which are non-RIAA anyway, as I use RIAA Radar extensively), they can come get me and I will fight tooth and nail for the ability to use my media how I see fit.