from theregister.co.uk

he Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) has began a legal spat with a man who copied CDs he had bought onto his computer.

Jeffery Howell of Scottsdale, Arizon has taken his case to court after he received a letter from the RIAA, reports the Washington Post.

The RIAA, which lobbies on behalf of a music industry hammered by tumbling sales as fans increasingly turn to free downloads and file sharing for their listening pleasure, insists that it is illegal for someone who has legally bought a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

And, it seems that Howell is the latest individual the RIAA has singled out for special treatment in its legal pantomime.

RIAA lawyer Ira Schwartz argued in a lawsuit brief filed earlier this month that the 2,000 or so MP3 files Howell created were "unauthorised copies" of copyrighted music.

So far it is unclear as to how and why Howell was targeted by the RIAA. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the MP3s were made available to all comers.

On its website the RIAA states: "If you make unauthorised copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

Indeed, underlining its uncompromising stance over what it sees as online music theft the RIAA has already sued Jammie Thomas, a single mother living in Brainerd, Minnesota who ended up in civil court for copyright infringement.

She was stung with a $222,000 fine after the jury returned the verdict that Thomas was liable for wilfully infringing the copyrights on 24 songs.

The RIAA said that it will continue its legal battle against customers that it believes are breaking the law by copying CDs onto their computers.

According to the Washington Post a RIAA spokesman said: "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law."

Of course it remains to be seen whether the industry's inflexible attitude toward a rapidly changing landscape in which fans consume music will hold water in the long game. But this latest move by the big record companies to hold individuals personally responsible perhaps signals how weak at the knees they have truly become.

I predicted some time back that this would probably happen for a couple of reasons. Firstly, their Australian cousins at the ARIA held this position long ago, and secondly, if you accept what I have long said really is the legal position of the RIAA, i.e. that there is only a user licensing agreement established when you purchase a music CD, i.e. that you and you alone are allowed, pursuant to purchase of the music CD, to listen to the music carried by the CD as a vehicle, an unspecified number of times.

I believe they will eventually take the stand that legally, you cannot even have friends listen to the CD with you, and in the most outrageous of takes on this, they may at some point take the position that you do not even have the right to burn (as in destroy) or alter the physical CD in any manner.

They honestly, in my opinion, should include a EULA licensing agreement witih the sale of each music CD or DVD which spells out what they contend are your rights, as well as what their rights and obligations are under this contract.
~Code

SO, prior to even making a "backup" copy of your own CD, I assume they are contending you must seek and obtain, express , written, legal permission from the copyright owner of the tunes found on a given CD.

The latest on this is that they are allegedly not suing him for ripping his own, but for alleged illegal downloading
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

"The RIAA said that it will continue its legal battle against customers that it believes are breaking the law by copying CDs onto their computers."

Look on iTunes ya RIAA Morons, you'll find plenty of those sorts of customers there. Oh and Rhapsody, too.

-Dave

they are allegedly not suing him for ripping his own, but for alleged illegal downloading

Downloading is not illegal, either.

The RIAA said that it will continue its legal battle against customers that it believes are breaking the law by copying CDs onto their computers.

And maybe we are, but it doesn't matter.

"Section 1008 [AHRA] does not judge whether the underlying conduct is or is not infringement, but merely provides full protection against the specified types of copyright infringement actions."

Taking a step back for a moment, this is a particularly vivid example of the RIAA wasting everyone's time, effort, indignation, intelligence and, in this case, the resources of the judicial system and the defendant, by forcing the debate of an issue that has already been clearly determined.

On the net, we call this flamebait, and the purpose is the same -- to get people to stop talking about the matters at hand.

So, if you think back just a teeny bit, what was the world talking about (as far as music) just before they tossed this negative-attention grenade?

-- CD sales are in the tank.
-- Artists are finally telling the truth about the labels they work(ed) for.
-- Artists are leaving their labels as soon as their current contracts run out, because...
-- Record labels have become irrelevant.
-- Record labels are obviously run by morons, who recently stepped up to give us testimony of exactly how stupid they are.
-- The RIAA's investigative methods are highly questionable, if not illegal.
-- The RIAA is deceiving the courts, or at least trying to.

Then... "Ripping CDs is Illegal!!" Fear! Terror! Everybody PANIC!

I think we should stop reacting to the RIAA and develop a forward-looking plan to finish them off for good.

I'll go write one.

Give em Hell George!
You are right on target with what you are saying.

As for me, I continue to assert that the labels are NOT releasing CDs containing songs in MP3 format (at least I have never bought one in which the tunes were in MP3). MP3 is a LOSSY format, and therefore, it is a mere representation, albeit a form of limited quotation of the original, and I continue to assert that any use of MP3s ripped from CDs should be seen as fair use.
~Code

Good grief... So, If I buy a cd, rip it to my computer and then synch it to my ipod, I'm breaking the law? Man... My head hurts...

I think a lot of it is that the RIAA is trying to justify the fat fees it is collecting from its members by saying... Hey, look at how we are protecting your interests.

Lets face it, if the members record companies who pay RIAA their fees decide they aren't doing enough and decide to dump the RIAA and to look after their own interests, there will be a lot of rich lawyers out of business!

I wonder what EMI's position is on this topic. Now that they they have been acquired by Terra Firma and I recall reading an article here about them getting out of the RIAA. Moreover, they have remove the copy protection from their discs and files.

Not that I agree with what these RIAA ass-clowns are doing. But if they want to go after a big fish, go after GW Bush. I seem to recall him saying he had The Beatles on his iPod, and this was before the Fab Four library was available for downloading from iTunes. I wonder if they'll accuse him of copyright infringement, since he or someone had to rip the CDs.

CodeWarrior  
Date: January 2, 2008 @ 12:30 PM
The latest on this is that they are allegedly not suing him for ripping his own, but for alleged illegal downloading
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/


Yeah, some of the news stories were incomplete or misleading, but the most reliable of them seems plausible enough: not for downloading but for having copyrighted audio files in an uploaded state in a "shared" folder connected to a file-sharing network.

The following was posted on another Boycott thread, "Record Industry Goes After Personal Use":
The big point to consider in the issue of the RIAA calling rips "unauthorized" is that "unauthorized" is not necessarily "illegal". If someone says you have not been granted permission to do something, simply ask yourself whether any permission is necessary. You need nobody's permission to exercise your rights — fair use rights or any other kinds of rights. As soon as you accept the lie that you do, you're lost.
People who confuse (i.e., automatically equate) "unauthorized" with "illegal" are part and parcel of the problem... in the music sphere or any other sphere.

As mentioned, the real issue in this case with Howell is that he made music he purchased available for downloading while connected to a file-sharing network. Such action is vulnerable to legal recourse by the copyright holders, of course.
His losing that case should not come as any sort of surprise... any more than Jammie losing hers.

Buy the RIAA and then give back all the rights and sue your customers so they don't feel left out ... simple.

I wonder what EMI's position is on this topic. Now that they they have been acquired by Terra Firma and I recall reading an article here about them getting out of the RIAA.

EMI was said to have been considering getting out of the RIAA, but they haven't done anything, other than verify they're going to keep charging artists a packaging deduction from royalties for digital copies. That's what drove Radiohead out. McCartney went to Starbucks because of his inability to find "someone with a brain" in EMI's marketing department.

EMI's position on this topic is irrelevant because EMI has become irrelevant. They're going to be the first to go.

Regular-Guy: now, now that would be very anti-american. Remember the president can do no wrong and anyone who says he can is a red, commie bastard.