http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693. html?hpid=topnews

Then I guess we're all going to jail!

Personally, I think the RIAA should concentrate on how to grab back marketshare in the digital age, rather than sue.

This is just greed! I think that it is perfectly legitimate and smart that somebody would want to make a backup copy of a CD, especially if it is rare or expensive (as in the case of some classical recordings) in the event that the original happens to get lost, destroyed, or stolen. But, Noooo! The greedy bastards at the RIAA expect the consumer to go out and buy a new copy of the recording, even if it is something that is out of print!

On a related subject, can somebody explain to me what fail-safes exist in Itunes or similar systems to prevent consumers from losing the recordings that they have paid for? For instance, if an Ipod gets dropped, stepped on, or the hard disk dies, does the user have to re-buy his entire music collection to put it onto a new Ipod?

Looks like the RIAA might be right on this one after all: http://www.musicradio77.com/wwwboard//messages/330786.html

It appears that Carbonite is backing up my iTunes files. If I'm wrong, please let me know fast.

Thanks,

Although I am not a fan of the RIAA they are not being quite so heavy-handed as most of the media is making them out to be. I realize it's much more fun to spread FUD, but the truth is that the RIAA is NOT suing over CD Ripping.

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

crap ... I was singing in the shower this morning. That will probably be unauthorized performance.

the guy was sharing them online for download. thats the problem. your all safe except for don from salem (can you say jail) sorry don

I think the RIAA needs to fight the record company's to make better NEW music instead of the garbage they've been putting out for the last 15 years.

---

quote:

Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

---

Very subtle spin on their part. In reality, is actually is an unauthorized copy!

,but it's perfectly legal to perform, does not matter if they like it, authorize it or not, ones ability to make backups is protected under existing law.

Really, they are arguing distribution. That's the right case to make for them. This incorporation of ripping CD's is just an attempt at gaining some negative ground on that issue.

Rip, mix, burn, it's all good. Just don't distribute beyond your own personal means, and there is not really much they can do about it, barring they employ encryption. Even then, one can make the backup, it's just illegal to employ a device to circumvent said encryption.

If one can just figure that out, well that's a personal matter --also legal, just can't talk about it, thanks to the DMCA.

Don't you all just love these asses folks?

The RIAA is just pissed because they and the people they represent are fading into irrelevance. Those that can't adapt will go away. Those that can will flourish.

I hope this question is not too far off-topic for this thread - there is some relevance.

I've been wondering lately about the legality of something I'm considering doing. We all know that it's legal to record a TV program and watch it later. Most people have done this for decades now - record a program, then watch it later or possibly store it away forever (or as long as the tape last). More recently people are doing this with DVRs and writable DVDs, or recording the programs on a computer. As far as I know, all of this is still 100% legal - all protected by the 'Betamax' decision.

My question, however, comes regarding music. If I record, say, one of Comcast's "Music Choice" channels on my computer, then later go back and slice out the individual songs to listen to on my computer or iPod later, have I broken any laws?

IANAL but I believe that all of the illegality comes in when you begin giving the recordings away, not when you acquire them for your own personal use.

A few months ago, I was looking up giutar tablature for a song I wanted to try and play from a web page I have been using for some time (http://www.guitartabs.com/) only to be greeted by a friendly message indicating they are temporarily off-line because of legality concerns. Looking at the web page now, it appears to be completely off-line, and is displaying one of those spyware-ridden "This domain is for sale"-esque search functions. Looks like it must be illegal to own a piece of sheet music now, too.
======================================================

Queue sez--
"My question, however, comes regarding music. If I record, say, one of Comcast's "Music Choice" channels on my computer, then later go back and slice out the individual songs to listen to on my computer or iPod later, have I broken any laws?"

Hey, I have been doing practically the same thing myself for the last several years. Only real difference is my source is Muzak via Echostar 7 (instead of Music Choice via Comcast) but in practise it's all the same process regardless. And then I play it back on my computer or CD players later on. (Like I say, same process, just somewhat different equipment.)

Technically, when you figure the difference of sample rates between a DVB satelite audio broadcast (in Muzak's case 48000hz as AC3 audio) vs. that of my CD (in my case 44100hz. 320kbps MP3 usually, if not 160kbps MP2) the finished recording on the disc is, in fact, technically of lower quality than the original broadcast. To my knowledge, that is legal and is stipulated as such in the Audio Home Recording Act. So just offhand I would say, that so long as you save the songs in a lower quality format like 44100Hz (I believe Comcast, like Muzak, samples at 48000Hz also) and only use them for your own personal listening, e.g. at home or on earphones, you should still be somewhat legal.

(Edit--cleaned up irrelevant stuff)

So what if I want to sell my 3 8 track set of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons greatest hits?
I orginially bought it new Is that legal? How about when Goodwill sells used records? The artist and record company makes nothing on the deal. So, what's the difference between selling my Jan and Dean Meet Batman album, or making a copy and giving it away?

Just asking.

The difference lies in the right of first sale.

In the case where one has purchased an authorized copy, one is completely free to sell it to another, barring said copy does not come with or be part of a greater contractual agreement.

(Like if you had to sign to get your CD or Album)

No matter who the copy is sold to, it was authorized.

When you make your own copy, you have infringed on their right to make copies. The word infringement is used, largely because they do not lose anything material. They still have their right, there just is this copy out there, they didn't exercise their right to realize.

(that's why it's not theft to distribute copies It's still wrong, but it's just different enough from theft to require it's own damn word)

Now, having made that copy, it's not authorized, because they don't want you to copy, but the law strikes a balance for personal use.

Once you distribute that copy, then you've infringed on their right to distribution, as well as the right to copy, and in doing so, both become unprotected by the law --or, at least they think so. I personally don't know!

It's complex, for sure.

One other puzzler out there right now. Say you buy your authorized CD, and copy it. The right of first sale still applies, so you sell it, but don't get rid of your backup.

There is nothing, other than ethics, to compel you to get rid of the backup, because that would make a loss confusing then, wouldn't it? Since one can say said original copy was lost, and there is no contract, simple possession of unauthorized copies is not an indication of guilt of any kind.

Kind of a travesty of the law, and one I'm always watching develop.

Cheers, and drink one to the RIAA.

Another puzzler is regarding when something is stolen. If I buy a CD, rip it to my computer, then listen to the original in my car, which is subsequently stolen, is the copy on my PC now illegal?

I suspect that it is NOT illegal, unless I specifically make an insurance claim for the cost of the stolen CD. If the insurance company pays me for the stolen CD, then I must go and repurchase it in order for my ripped copy to be legal.

But the question remains - if a thief steals my original physical media, have they made my backup copy an illegal copy?

Care for more puzzlers? I've got a ton of these IP/Copyright questions to which I'd love to figure out the answers!

Currently, that answer is no. You are completely free to retain and use and copy your backup for personal use.

Giving it away though, would not be legal, as the right of first sale was only attached to the (lost, destroyed, sold, gifted) original and authorized copy.

There is a travesty there too. One could buy media, make backups, then sell / trade said media, and continue to make backups.

(that's in the courts somewhere right now, BTW)

So, say the thief takes your stolen CD and sells it to Everyday Music, and I buy it. Who has the legal copy, you or me?

Since yours is stolen, it is nor legal. Only if the original owner transfered the rights, does the new person in possession of the media, become the valid owner.

I think I almost agree with that.

Is complete ignorance a defense against criminal possession of stolen goods? I think it's not criminal, if one is ignorant of their stolen status, but one also does not have entitlement either. However, until such a time as that stolen status is known, this all is a moot point right?

At the moment the stolen status is known, continued possession is then a crime, right?

@Queue

"I suspect that it is NOT illegal, unless I specifically make an insurance claim for the cost of the stolen CD. If the insurance company pays me for the stolen CD, then I must go and repurchase it in order for my ripped copy to be legal. "

Been thinking about this one. It's a great puzzler! (I like these, BTW.)

I think your backup "ripped copy" is legal no matter what! When your original was stolen, you really lost your right to first sale, being left with a copy you cannot distribute, so it really has no value. The value lies in the right of first sale and that was attached to the stolen one, not the copy.

Since you do not have the right to distribute, the copy is then worthless. Since you've already experienced the content, really it's not like you are getting something for nothing, in that respect. You have preserved your ability to experience, but nothing else.

If you made your claim to recover value stolen, I'm not sure you are obligated to replace it with the same title. You could decide that such a purchase is too risky, and invest that recovered value somewhere else.

Say that title was now unavailable. Maybe somebody stole a unique copy! It was signed, or limited edition, something where you just can't go and get one. Your insurance compensated you for your value loss, but really can't compensate you for the actual item, if said item is rare.

You might decide to purchase something else! That value then is captured into the right of first sale, attached to the new title, leaving you with the same value you had before the theft, or loss.

There is also the simple matter of investing that value, to change your risk proposition. Maybe toss it into savings, or something. You've not infringed on their rights in any of these cases, so there should be no worries.

Anybody else have thoughts on this one?

The RIAA is now saying that it is OK to burn your CDs to your computer....but you cannot put that music into a "shared file" that can be accessed by anyone else or shared with anyone else such as on a file sharing network.

see my above post

@Stan

That's exactly the way the law is currently written. I'm sure the blowback on that statement was pretty darn high!

Although I refuted the title of this thread earlier, it is now confirmed to be 100% true.

This article is the latest in a series of explanations, re-explanations, and re-re-explanations of what the RIAA thinks. (Assuming anyone at the RIAA actually has the ability to think.)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-still-thin.html

Nothing but more spin!

See my post above.

Their position is that said copies are unauthorized. They are not gonna legally say, on the record, that it's ok, because they don't want it to be the case.

What is saying that is a lot of case law, they are wanting really badly to overturn!

Right now, here, today, digitally copying your CD is legal --absolutely, without question. Think about it! A copy must happen for it to be played, at the very least.

Trans-coding it to play on another device is legal as well, has been for years.

This whole case is about distribution, nothing more, nothing less.

Really, they are trying to infer that if it were illegal to copy and trans-code, then sharing wouldn't be a problem! Of course, that's absolutely true, but for those living in areas of the world where that has not yet been legislated.

Most all of the worlds major labels are abandoning DRM for their digital music downloads. That's right, free and open files you can move from device to device, burn to CD, archive, etc...

Their own public statements, prior to this change in direction, contradict the position being taken here.

It's the same thing as saying, if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime, the rights of the people be dammed.

So long as we are allowed to use Turing complete computers (computers capable of any operation we ask of them), there can and will be copies.

"So, to sum up, the RIAA does believe that a majority of American music buyers are thieving criminals, but it's not going to sue anyone over ripping MP3s because) a) it's not really a big deal to them anymore b) there's no real way to find out and/or c) it would be terrible publicity to sue someone for using an iPod."

The reason they are not going to push this, is it is quite simply a losing position on all fronts. Without this being possible, much of the technology we use daily would have to be repurposed and or disposed of, for people to reach compliance.

Ain't gonna happen and that's that.

This is a distribution case, no matter what they say about it.

Imagine if you sold bottles of water at a high price in the dessert. People would buy it. Your business would thrive. Then imagine it starts to rain, and the rain lasts a long time. Vegetation starts to grow, and streams start to flow. What would happen to your water business? It would fail! You'd have to be innovative, and start selling umbrellas or water purifiers or something.

This is where the record industry stands today. It's used to making it's profits off of distribution, but it's no longer needed for that. So, it cries to the government for legal protection. It's pathetic. The artists can fix this though. They can start record companies that give you half-priced concert tickets for an $8.00 album download. That kind of thing.

I think someone should be able to copy their own music. I also think non-for-profit sites that facilitate file sharing should be legal.

Here is a very interesting brief, filed on behalf of the defendants, in this case:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefO pposSumJudgMot

It seems the RIAA is trying to significantly expand what distribution rights infringment actually means, and are doing it in a case where the defendants are not well represented.

Interesting reading. The argument is based on a technicality that an authorized agent acting on behalf of a copyright owner cannot infringe any rights held by that owner. Meaning they are authorized to download the copyrighted material no matter who provides it, therefore the source providing it is distributing the material to an authorized representative of the copyright holder. Giving them their own material. A copyright owner cannot infringe their own copyright.

Priceless.

This from All Access:

-------------------RIAA Hires FBI Agent To Probe Piracy------------------

The RIAA has hired former FBI agent KATHY LEODLER director of investigations for its Western region anti-piracy unit.The former acting special agent from the FBI's SAN DIEGO office will work with law enforcement engaged in both physical and online music piracy investigations.

"KATHY's tremendous experience directing teams in sensitive and complex domestic and international investigations is supreme," said RIAA EVP/Anti-Piracy BRAD BUCKLES. "Her ability to utilize sophisticated techniques and tactical response will be a huge asset to the hard work we do to further our mission."

Congratulations, Kathy! ;)

Some hackers got into the RIAA website over the weekend.

RIAA.com's complete database erased
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19839109

And a hosed study of college downloading?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j33CBI8sUdc5ni7RlxSj5SIEc2mwD8UB6S0O2