RIAA says copying your own CDs is illegal

[newbie2]

RIAA in the 'land of the free' :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/riaa_cds_copies_computer/
](*,)

[~LoKe]

Yeah, so? According to law, it is illegal.

[mr.propre]

That isn't so strange, for example in Belgium you are allowed to make one backup copy on a different medium IF there is no protection on the cd. So a backup of a game or some cd's is illegal. Its not fun but are you going to listen? The IRAA is also not fun about open source alternatives because they don't make money on it, but it doesn't stop your from using Ubuntu.

[Laterix]

Yeah, so? According to law, it is illegal.
According to law of which country. RIAA can say what ever they want, but they still have no power in my country. Too bad for them.

[~LoKe]

According to law of which country. RIAA can say what ever they want, but they still have no power in my country. Too bad for them.
RIAA
The Recording Industry Association of America

I thought that was fairly evident...

[Balazs_noob]

so now when you buy a nice audio CD you can't listen
to it on your portable mp3 player :confused:

this just forces people to don't give a *** about the law!

[Spike-X]

"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."

It's not April 1st yet, is it? Because that has to be a joke.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Pointless. Its like trying to grab sand on a beach - the more you tighten your grip, the more sand you lose.

[AbredPeytr]

Unless there has been a drastic change to the law (and under the Bush Administration that is fully possible) I don't see how RIAA's case hasn't simply been thrown out. It has been consistently upheld that the purchaser of a CD, DVD, etc. is allowed to make a copy for personal use.

If the gentleman being sued by RIAA wasn't involved in illegally making his 2000 songs availabel to others, it begs the question as to how RIAA knew about the songs?

p.s. RIAA also works outside the USA. The music companies want to get as much money as possible without actually doing any work. Why make high quality music available for purchase and downloading when you can simply sue a couple of Joe Schmoes, get it in the papers and scare the vast majority of people who are law-abiding purchasers of music. It does nothing agaist the actual pirates out there.

[jc87]

A) The RIAA does not decides when something is legal or illegal, specially in others countries.

B) Is because of things like this that i decided to start looking for independent musicians, the internet is a great tool:)

[oldb0y]

Well, this just makes me more happy about not living in the USA.:roll:

[Peyton]

Well, this just makes me more happy about not living in the USA.:roll:

...where ripping is fair use.

[oldb0y]

...where ripping is fair use.

Indeed!

[p_quarles]

Yeah, so? According to law, it is illegal.
No, it's not.

[Whiffle]

This is pretty hilarious. Check out what the RIAA website said about this last year aroud this time:



What is your stand on MP3?
This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right.


http://web.archive.org/web/20060115012739/http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp

Ahh..the joys of the internet archive.

[~LoKe]

No, it's not.

It must be, or the RIAA wouldn't have a case.

[leg]

I was always of the opinion that you were allowed to make a backup of anything you owned. I do and listen to my cds through rhythmbox after ripping them onto my computer. I do not see how this is infringing copyright. Of course the problem is that if this were accepted then some copies will appear as illegal downloads. I do believe that the attention is in the wrong place and should be focused on the activity of illegal downloading instead of the normal consumer who has no intention of passing the copies on.

[p_quarles]

It must be, or the RIAA wouldn't have a case.
Honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.:confused:

In any case, I believe that Dan Lyons made a similar argument regarding SCO a few years back: they wouldn't be pressing the issue if they didn't have a case. So, if this means that the RIAA is going to wind up in bankruptcy in a few years, I'm all for it.

[dasunst3r]

I enforce my fair use rights in the form of civil disobedience, and I encourage people who do the same thing. That's how much I respect the RIAA and DMCA.

[LaRoza]

If I buy a CD, and use it for my personal enjoyment, I will listen to it on whatevery device I wish.

Granted, for me, that means a CD player, but I reserve the right to listen to it on my computer or other form of portable music player, no matter what someone else says.

I consider the RIAA and government to be "someone else" because they are, they have no intrinsic authority.

[darklemming54]

It must be, or the RIAA wouldn't have a case.



IIRC, The person who they charged had the CD that they ripped in their shared folder of a file sharing program. It was never downloaded but they claimed that making a CD available, even if you own it, is copyright infringement. They do have a case, but not simply because he ripped a CD.

They do still call ripping a CD it 'unauthorized' (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/30/1835210), but authorization isn't required to rip CDs


Yeah, so? According to law, it is illegal.
Ripping a CD isn't against any law in the USA. In fact, its protected by fair use laws.

[Pethegreat]

I am wondering if it is illegal to rip CDs to your computer, then would it be illegal to sell CDs you no longer listen to. That is technically sharing music, and getting money from an artists copyrighted work.

I would love to see RIAA go after places that buy and sell used CDs. They would not be able to win against a legitimate business.

[AndyCooll]

These articles seem to indicate that Jeffery Howells isn't actually being sued for copying files to his pc, he's being sued for filesharing. However what is sticking in people's the throat is the RIAA calling music files ripped from legally owned CD's as "unauthorized copies".

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html)
RIAA not suing over CD ripping, still kinda being jerks about it (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/)

Just as an earlier poster mentioned, it is one of the reasons why I too have spent time recently obtaining legally free (and usually independent) music.

:cool:

[popch]

I am wondering if it is illegal to rip CDs to your computer, then would it be illegal to sell CDs you no longer listen to. That is technically sharing music, and getting money from an artists copyrighted work.

I would love to see RIAA go after places that buy and sell used CDs. They would not be able to win against a legitimate business.

Depends on your country. Some countries let you make backup copies. They also explicitly demand that you destroy all backup copies if the original media leaves your possession.

[~LoKe]

Ripping a CD isn't against any law in the USA. In fact, its protected by fair use laws.

Circumventing the copy protection on a CD falls under fair use?

[p_quarles]

Circumventing the copy protection on a CD falls under fair use?
I've never come across an audio CD that had any form of copy protection. The one case I know of is Sony's debacle with the rootkit, but that was not designed to prevent people from ripping CDs.

[LaRoza]

Circumventing the copy protection on a CD falls under fair use?

I don't see any copy protection.

[~LoKe]

I've never come across an audio CD that had any form of copy protection. The one case I know of is Sony's debacle with the rootkit, but that was not designed to prevent people from ripping CDs.

They exist, I can assure you.

[~LoKe]

I don't see any copy protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_copying_software

[p_quarles]

They exist, I can assure you.
You can provide me with some evidence, too.

I own several hundred CDs, most of which I have ripped to various digital audio formats. They come from large and small labels. I've never once had to use any form of copy-protection circumvention to rip a CD.

EDIT: I should probably also mention that some recently produced CDs actually have Ogg Vorbis encoded mini-copies of the entire album on them.

[LaRoza]

EDIT: I should probably also mention that some recently produced CDs actually have Ogg Vorbis encoded mini-copies of the entire album on them.

Which company?

[Techwiz]

Copying your OWN CDs to your computer illegal!?! In my opinion if you own the CD and want to listen to it on your computer without having to keep track of the CD you should be allowed to copy it (for your own use of course). Playing your CD off of your hard drive (I think) is effectively the same thing as playing it in a CD player.

[LaRoza]

Copying your OWN CDs to your computer illegal!?! In my opinion if you own the CD and want to listen to it on your computer without having to keep track of the CD you should be allowed to copy it (for your own use of course). Playing your CD off of your hard drive (I think) is effectively the same thing as playing it in a CD player.

The title was misleading, it was found that the actual case cited involved sharing it.

[AndyCooll]

They exist, I can assure you.

True, they do exist, some of the Sony CD's were the best known examples.

However, most audio CD's do not come with copy protection ...and indeed following the Sony debacle this has been a deliberate policy of all the majors music companies. It would these days be quite difficult to find any music company that still does so.

:cool:

[p_quarles]

Which company?
Can't remember, but most likely an indie label, since most of my disks come from those. It came to my attention because I was ripping a bunch of disks to FLAC, and on several CDs, K3b asked me if I wanted to simply copy the audio files instead of ripping tracks.

[~LoKe]

True, they do exist, some of the Sony CD's were the best known examples.

However, most audio CD's do not come with copy protection ...and indeed following the Sony debacle this has been a deliberate policy of all the majors music companies. It would these days be quite difficult to find any music company that still does so.

:cool:

That tells you how long it's been since I've bought a CD. :lolflag:

[AndyCooll]

Copying your OWN CDs to your computer illegal!?! In my opinion if you own the CD and want to listen to it on your computer without having to keep track of the CD you should be allowed to copy it (for your own use of course). Playing your CD off of your hard drive (I think) is effectively the same thing as playing it in a CD player.

This is where I always find things confusing. I believe (and please correct me if you know otherwise) that legally speaking you might own the CD (as in the disc itself), but not the content on it. You are only actually granted a licence to play the music that is on it for your own purposes. Hence the reason why music companies try to limit what you do with it and seem to have so much control, for you never actually own that copy of the music.

It's the same with the Windows OS. even though you own the physical CD, you are still only being granted a licence for the OS itself. You never actually own that copy of the OS.

:cool:

[DeadSuperHero]

I hope the entire RIAA drops dead.
See, this is an example of why there's so many angry people in America anymore. Lots of corrupt companies who want you to live by their "standards", which they pretty much make up themselves.
Bunch of stupid mother *******.

EDIT: Hmm, they're suing the guy over sharing the files. Still, I believe I have every right to transfer my cds to a digital format. Most CD players are phasing out anyway.

[LaRoza]

This is where I always find things confusing. I believe (and please correct me if you know otherwise) that legally speaking you might own the CD (as in the disc itself), but not the content on it. You are only actually granted a licence to play the music that is on it for your own purposes. Hence the reason why music companies try to limit what you do with it and seem to have so much control, for you never actually own that copy of the music.

It's the same with the Windows OS. even though you own the physical CD, you are still only being granted a licence for the OS itself. You never actually own that copy of the OS.


What you stated is true, but it also shows that the cd itself is unimportant and that making copies of it (as long as they are used according to the license) make a lot of sense and is logical.

I backup all my Linux disks on hard disk, so I don't have to worry about the physical disks as much. Although I do take care of my disks, they are often stored on the floor around my disk until they are sorted and saved in my disk holders.

[iPower]

if we are not allowed to make a copy of cds we buy then they shouldn't have money for empty cds/dvds/+more

[~LoKe]

if we are not allowed to make a copy of cds we buy then they shouldn't have money for empty cds/dvds/+more

There are other purposes for blank media (Linux, for example ;))

[Spike-X]

Circumventing the copy protection on a CD falls under fair use?

If that's what you need to do in order to enjoy your music the way you wish, then it damn well should.

I found out recently that the copy protection on EMI CDs seems to only work on Windows-based systems. I popped one in to rip with Grip, and it worked as easily as any other CD. Would this be classed as 'circumventing' copy protection, I wonder?

[Peyton]

if we are not allowed to make a copy of cds we buy then they shouldn't have money for empty cds/dvds/+more

(Edit: nevermind.)

[nikoPSK]

I read that in the newspaper. I believe it is in some sense very straightforward.

[steveneddy]

The RIAA are actually a bunch of idiots that believe that forcing everyone to their views that we will all comply. This is the start of monarchy. This is dangerous thinking that should be quelled.

I will not bow to this autocratic way of thinking. I live in a free country and I choose to do what I will with items that I buy.

I'm about to finish a movie server and copy ALL of my legally purchased DVD's over to hard disc for private viewing in my home. No one can stop me from doing this.

Lawyers that work for this organization are heartless worms. All lawyers are heartless worms, BTW. To think that I almost became a lawyer myself.

:shock:

[Techwiz]

The title was misleading, it was found that the actual case cited involved sharing it.
Yes I know. I was talking about the sentence at the bottom of the article (I believe) talking about the RIAA making it illegal to copy your own CDs to your computer for your own use. I apologize if I took that sentence the wrong way.

[jgrabham]

Oh, like we care when the RIAA threatens us. Ooh Im scared of MS too. Theyre not going to do anything to you, chill.

[~LoKe]

Oh, like we care when the RIAA threatens us. Ooh Im scared of MS too. Theyre not going to do anything to you, chill.

...
Except the original post in this thread contains an article about someone being sued for a large sum of money. Which has also happened many times in the past.

Yeah, nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

[LaRoza]

Yes I know. I was talking about the sentence at the bottom of the article (I believe) talking about the RIAA making it illegal to copy your own CDs to your computer for your own use. I apologize if I took that sentence the wrong way.

I don't know what the RIAA actually meant, and really don't care.

No need to apologize, they give mixed messages.

[Mateo]

...
Except the original post in this thread contains an article about someone being sued for a large sum of money. Which has also happened many times in the past.

Yeah, nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

that "someone" was involved in piracy. Not someone who simply ripped their legal cds for personal use. if you do the latter, whether "legal" or not, no one can possible know. at least not if you're using ubuntu. so i wouldn't worry.

[Pethegreat]

I'm about to finish a movie server and copy ALL of my legally purchased DVD's over to hard disc for private viewing in my home. No one can stop me from doing this.
I have some free hard drive space, and I have some movies lying around. What are you using to copy the DVDs on to your hard drive?

They can't get you without proof. The only way they can get you and prove you were violating the law is if you are sharing your files over torrents or by other means. They can't get everyone, there are not enough lawyers in this country, and judges will get tired of the cases.

[Methuselah]

Ownership rights are getting very hazy because someone discovered that if they can charge you money for things yet say they still own it they can greatly restrict user rights while charging you additional money for extended uses.

In order to charge for something, it becomes necessary to take away ownership right. So really, the process of wealth creation for one is a process of impoverishment for another. Laws create a framework for people to claim ownership of things that could be free, like a certain sequence of sound frequencies or water or an idea or looking at an elephant.

Laws will also generally be in favour of big businesses because these are what contribute the most to political campaigns. So big businesses make money from consumers and use that money to lobby for laws which tighten the screws and make it possible for them to make more money from consumers. It's really a rather nice cycle, get used to it. We live in a century of individual and corporate ownership not community property as in some civiilzations before.

Really, your only vote is to not buy and do without or circumvent where possible with the risk of legal penalties. I've generally chosen option number 1.
I don't really listen to popular music or watch movies because they don't interest me much.
Understandably, the RIAAs antics pose a greater problem for people hopelessly addicted to this stuff.

[KB1LQC]

Wow,

This is the worst idea I've heard of in a while, what does the RIAA think they can do? When you buy a CD you OWN the rights to it, why wouldn't you... Maybe thats another reason that I am a HUGE Dispatch fan, They didn't really care, as long as people listened to their music (They got famous through Napster!). I'll be interested to see how long it takes to when an organization is formed to combat a sue the RIAA itself!




Thanks

KB1LQC:lolflag:

[toupeiro]

Its called.. The Digital Home Recording Act of 1992 (http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/ahra.html)

And it specifically states that CD's created with devices for the primary intent to reproduce digital audio content are covered in the amendment of the US copyright law. Now, unless they can PROVE you used a CD-R in a home PC, (Audio duplication is not the primary intent of a home personal computer in the eyes of the law), I'd say the RIAA can go pound sand. In a U.S. court of law, you're innocent until proven guilty (or so it's said). To my knowledge there is no hardware signature put on a CD from the recorder that wrote it. Even if there was, I can take that same CD-R drive out of a PC and put it in an Audio Duplicator chassis (http://www.networksoundinc.com/images/towers.jpg) or buy a device like this (http://www.cdrom2go.com/product-moreinfo.asp?P=E77003Z0DPILYCLCB9168) which can function with 0% PC connectivity and be perfectly legally covered. There is absolutely no case here IMO.


Directly from the amendment (P.L. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010)


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.

17 U.S.C. 1008.


Sounds like the guy in that article needs better representation...

[Stang Ulysses]

Update

The RIAA has since rubbished the Washington Post story as "wrong".

In a statement, the organisation said:"As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an mp3 player is infringement.

"This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

[Chame_Wizard]

ahhh the RIAA are crazy people:guitar:

[bobbocanfly]

It actually amazes me that people are still taking the RIAA seriously. How can people that think copying CDs to your hard drive is illegal have as much power as they do?

Anti-piracy groups are crazy people. Next they will be wanting us to pay for singing along at gigs.

[unknown03]

Thats funny.. who here that actually gives a s*$@ about what the RIAA has to say, we'd like you to wear a suit of sheep skin so we know who you are..

I'm in possession of receipts that say I am the owner of the disk (not the material, big difference) and I WILL do with it as I please, even if that means sticking it up the RIAA's *** (which, by the way, I also have a receipt for)

Now i've got some cd's to burn out of spite


:guitar:

[blastus]

Who cares.

I know we are talking about RIAA, but the MPAA beats the same drum. 99% of the movies produced now are not worth watching anyway--they should pay me to watch their crap or at least offer a refund off the rental. Occasionally I'll run into a good movie but it is rare. $5.50 just to rent a stupid movie for 2 nights is ridiculous.

[Stang Ulysses]

I agree as well with the copying of videos... I have small kids, and if I did not make copies of DVDs that I purchased, they'd be gone in a few months!! Same with my audio CDs.

[AndyCooll]

Being in favour of the idea of copying videos for home use is one thing, knowing where you stand from a legal viewpoint is another.

Technically (in some countries at least) it is illegal to make copies, even for home use. However, I'm not aware of any instances of the music industry attempting to prosecute someone for doing so, This is the legal situation here in the UK for instance, apparently, and indeed the reason why the BPI made it clear they wouldn't pursue consumers who did this ...provided it was for personal use only: UK music fans can copy own tracks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5053658.stm).

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread (here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4052648&postcount=23)), what got everyones back's up was the terminology they were using. Hence the reason why they've had to come out so strongly denying such an action, and making it absolutely clear what they were taking legal action for.

So whether you decided to ignore the law or not, were in agreement with it or not, or wished to actively take action to get it changed or not ...you ought at least be aware of where you were starting from.

:cool:

[fissionmailed]

As an artist who has created and released music via the internet freely, I say **** the RIAA. I don't think people should steal music now, but the RIAA are just making asses out of them selves.

[kvk]

I ended up doing the same thing, Fission. I used to make CDs, but I didn't want to stick yet more plastic and garbage into the landfills. So I posted everything on my site, and after thinking about it, I decided not to charge any money for it, and encourage everyone and anyone to freely distribute, copy, or otherwise transmit the music. It certainly hasn't made me very much money, but it feels like the right move. :)

[Eclipse.]

*Sigh*

Again the RIAA seeks to amaze me, what is so wrong about copying your own cds.Atleast you have payed money for it which is alot more than which most people do now (me included, i do buy tickets for concerts or a album i really like ect).All they are going to do is turn more and more people away from buying music when they can download the songs in seconds.Also bands and artists make most of their money from touring plus money for albums ect is payed to them up front, its not based on the amount of cds sold.

Anyway - RIAA come and get me.Even though I'm in the Uk.;)

[swoll1980]

RIAA in the 'land of the free' :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/riaa_cds_copies_computer/
](*,)

The RIAA has since rubbished the Washington Post story as "wrong".

In a statement, the organisation said:"As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an mp3 player is infringement.

"This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

read the article