The Power of Citizen Journalism
 
News» Top News» Latest News» Post News ($) Blogs» Top Blogs» Latest Blogs» Post Blog» Images» Top Images» Latest Images» Upload Images» TV» Groups» View Groups» Create a Group» Live Events» Alerts» Create an Alert» Manage Alerts» How do I ...» Get paid to report news» Post blogs» Upload images» Embed video» Join/create groups» Vote on news & images» Comment & debate»
 

article imageRecording Industry Targets Man For Copying Legally Purchased Music from CD to PC

Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Chris Hogg in Business | 8 comments | 3717 views
Join our team to voice opinions, share images, get paid to report news and more!
Email Print Share
Subscribe to author

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional
1 more article on this subject:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is targeting an Arizona man for ripping music onto his PC from CDs he bought legally. The RIAA says it's illegal for someone to copy music to their PC, even if the CDs were legally bought.

Digital Journal, Op-Ed -- If Jeffrey Howell loses his case against the RIAA, the precedent in the U.S. would be both completely ridiculous and utterly dangerous.

The Scottsdale, Arizona resident is being targeted by the recording industry for keeping his collection of about 2,000 songs on his computer. He bought them on CD and transferred them to his computer, which the RIAA says is illegal.

The case is not new (Howell was first brought into the file-sharing legal mix in 2006), but the RIAA has filed a supplemental brief that says ripping music from legally purchased CDs is illegal. On page 15 of the document, it reads: "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."

If the judge rules in favour of the RIAA (which most people believe is highly unlikely), any person in the U.S. who has ever copied music to their PC that they legally purchased on CD could become a target. In short, it would mean almost every iPod owner could be classed a copyright thief.

Howell has been accused of sharing music through the file-sharing giant Kazaa, but he says they were never shared and that his files were solely for personal use. He has until Jan. 11 to respond.

Many industry pundits argue the recording industry has no chance of successfully winning this court case. As Business Week's Stephen Wildstrom writes, "The music industry may be dumb enough to try this, but its chances of success are nil."

The blog world is bulging at its virtual seams with reports about Howell after the Washington Post ran this article in its Sunday edition. The Post reports, "The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are 'unauthorized copies' of copyrighted recordings."

The RIAA is grabbing on to whatever it can in its barren attempt to quash music piracy. Jammie Thomas, a single mother, was also recently brought to court by the RIAA for what it called illegally sharing 1,702 songs. In this case, Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation at Sony BMG, said “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’.”

The interesting part in the case against Howell is why the RIAA wants to waste its time; the Audio Home Recording Act (17 US 1008) says a citizen cannot be sued for making a digital copy of a song, as long as it's for personal use. The Act reads: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

And the recording industry wonders why everyone hates them.

As the Washington Post Notes: "The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only 'created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies...'Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started'."
article:248102:67::0
5 subscribers
Subscribe to this thread
  • avatar Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Michelle D. (PlanetJanet)
    #1
    i guess it's one of those things which was bound to happen eventually....
  • avatar Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Paul Bright
    #2
    Does this mean that Random House publishing can sue me for handcopying a sentence from a book I bought and putting it on my computer?
  • avatar Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
    #3
    My question is, was this guy sharing these specific files on Kazaa? And, is this supplemental thing about sharing or ripping? If it's about sharing, then it would seem that the RIAA does indeed have a case. If it's strictly about ripping, then I'm with you in thinking they don't.
  • avatar Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #4
    Windows Media Player has a specific "Rip" tab. There's no such thing as media that can't be copied. The musical part of the music industry will never see any benefit from this.

    Just another atrocity from the Industry Of Human Greed.

    Radiohead have the right idea; put the pigs out of business and be done with the whole charade.

    Not that they'd survive any scrutiny themselves.

    The industry is one massive tax dodge and financial rort anyway. It doesn't cost "millions" to record anything. It's the old production dodge, budget a million, spend a few thousand, nobody's the wiser, because the rest gets lost in paperwork and inflated charges.
  • Arnos Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  Arnos
    #5
    I hope that the backlash form this stops the RIAA from suing people like crazy. Stealing is wrong, but that doesn't entitle the RIAA to charge the thief a fine 1000 times as large as the song's value.
  • avatar Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  pajamadeen
    #6
    The RIAA has lost its grip on reality; they are out of their minds.
  • lamorial Posted Dec 30, 2007 by  lamorial
    #7
    "Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers.

    Canadian record labels had asked the court for authorization to identify 29 alleged file swappers in that country, in preparation for suing them for copyright infringement, much as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued more than 1500 people in America.

    But the judge denied that request. In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada."

    http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
  • avatar Posted Dec 31, 2007 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #8
    I wonder how many people out there are thinking "catch if you can"...

    This is crazy.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?