December 29th, 2007
RIAA Goes After Fair Use
By Michael Santo
Executive Editor, RealTechNews
In the case Atlantic vs. Howell, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell have been accused of file-sharing over the KaZaA network. Their defense has been that although there are plenty of MP3 files on their computer, the files were not shared but were ripped from purchased CDs for personal use only.
Possibly to increase their chances of a win, a supplemental brief filed by the RIAA contends that ripping music from legally purchased CD’s is illegal. This would eliminate any escape the Howells have. If successful, it would also mean that anyone who ever ripped a CD for their iPod or other MP3 player — would now be a criminal.
Right on page 15 of the brief linked above it says:
It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use.
So, according to the brief, ripped CDs = unauthorized copies.
Of course, the Howells could lose their case while the argument about CD ripping is dismissed, but time will tell. The defendants have until January 11th to respond.
Notably, this goes against statements made by the RIAA’s lawyers in the case of MGM vs. Grokster. It also contradicts the RIAA’s own website, which says:
… burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
- The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
- The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
However, it also follows closely the comments made by Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation at Sony BMG, who said during testimony in the Jammie Thomas case that:
“When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’.”
It could be said this “test” of Fair Use has been a long time coming. Obviously more to come.
OldPhart says:
..and with the new laws being formed in the halls in Washington, new govt agencies are being formed at the behest of the RIAA and MPAA. It won’t be long for “doublespeak” to be implemented mandating methods for listening to music and watching movies. Who would have ever thought that copying your cd’s to play in your truck would become illegal. This is a true perversion of the law, fair use, and above all…a clear indication of how greed can corrupt.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
John Corliss says:
Pretty easy to see what the outcome of this case will be: In Amerika, money buys you all the “justice” you can afford.
God… what’s happened to this country? It used to be a good place to live.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Stas says:
They’ll loose and big time and the reason is the electronics industry and phone industry (to include Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, etc) will loose billions in sales and frankly, their pockets are a lot deeper then these old greedy music bastards.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
John says:
RIAA is primarily Sony, followed by a bunch of hop along lap dog me too’s. I haven’t purchased a single Sony product since they starting suing grandmas years ago and don’t plan to ever purchase one again. They don’t care about you or anyone else - there is no decency in their behavior. They care only for the money.. YOUR money. So stop giving it to them.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Bradford Taylor says:
* Sony made money on the computer
* Sony made money on the MP3 player
* Sony made money on the CD
* Sony then asks the RIAA to sue you for more money because you used their products in a way they were designed.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
dogger says:
since when do i need authorization to listen to music i own,
i know im just saying the same old argument, i bought it i can do whatever the hell i want with it.
but its true, why buy something if someone else is still going to own it forever regardless of the money.
it seems more you buy CDs for the right to listen rather than the right of possestion.
-New Years morning casualty
December 31st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Michael says:
“So, according to the brief, ripped CDs = unauthorized copies.”
Not quite. You are quoting out of context. See http://www.cio-today.com/news/RIAA-Not-Targeting-CD-Ripping-After-All/story.xhtml?story_id=13300C81I5JE for a full discussion, including opinions of legal experts.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:24 am