RIAA Now Filing Suits Against Consumers Who Rip CDs


Recommended Posts

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.

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?

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.

+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.

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.

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 by APH-Alex
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 by Bekabam
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.

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.

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

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.

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).

"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.

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.

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.....

... 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 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.

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.

... 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

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!