digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

RIAA not suing over CD ripping

engadget.com — Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 30, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

82 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 12/30/2007, -13/+74Obligatory "***** the RIAA"
  • actorboy, on 12/30/2007, -4/+45Nice work, Engadget! An erroneous news report based a erroneous news report. It took me all of 60 seconds to find the actual court documents through Google. You guys taking journalism classes from Ernesto over at Torrentfreak?

    Here are the documents for anyone interested (pdf): http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= ...
  • Rotzooi, on 12/30/2007, -0/+26obligatorily dugg.
  • cardyology, on 12/30/2007, -5/+27FTRIAA
  • inactive, on 12/30/2007, -0/+19No, that's pretty much everywhere.
  • musicphreke, on 12/30/2007, -2/+19Rest of the article:
    "As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?"

    So they're basically just 'mentioning' the CD ripping thing, but not really doing anything about it.
  • chris9902, on 12/30/2007, -0/+17"Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit"

    read: Somebody emailed us.
  • RlAA, on 12/30/2007, -2/+13***** you
  • joper90, on 12/30/2007, -0/+10So what.. i todays media world, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
  • w00kiekrisp, on 12/30/2007, -0/+9someone should submit that to urban dictionary
  • inactive, on 12/30/2007, -1/+10Boycott! Stop the CASH flow!
  • antitab, on 12/30/2007, -0/+8If the lawyer quote implicating anyone who has ripped a CD to their hard drive is accurate, that means much more than the details of this case.
  • whyufail, on 12/30/2007, -2/+9Enjoy that fail while it lasts. Savor it.
  • inactive, on 12/30/2007, -2/+9Even engadget's correction is inaccurate.
    Jesus H. Christ...how is it possible that and the end of 2007, there is still a ***** TECH site that is claiming that people are being sued for DOWNLOADING music?
  • aeiou, on 12/30/2007, -1/+8Sry, downloading is illegal. The thing is that the RIAA has only really targeted people that upload. That does not mean that downloading is legal. I do believe, however, that in some countries your statement is true (Canada, I think).
  • DephexTwin, on 12/30/2007, -0/+7I'm skeptical of what you're telling me.
  • whyufail, on 12/30/2007, -0/+7Your never going to give them up? Never going to let them down?

  • merripen, on 12/30/2007, -0/+6Oh thank goodness, it's just the standard dickery.
  • Tippis, on 12/30/2007, -0/+6It works the other way around: due to fair-use laws, they *did* authorize you to make copies by selling you the CD.
  • mlwarrior, on 12/30/2007, -3/+8Rest assured that this article will receive only a sliver of the diggs that the other story had.
  • arkmtech, on 12/30/2007, -2/+7***** great - I'm still not supporting them, nor buying music from anyone they do business with.
  • ithejosh, on 12/30/2007, -4/+9***** THE RIAA
  • LaerrusFish, on 12/30/2007, -1/+5"Hell, RIAA lawyers have even suggested that they're going to start suing customers of iTunes and Amazon's MP3 service because even though you've paid for the music, "downloading music on the internet is still illegal"."
    If you're not going to cite your reference, why bother.
    I think you sir are full of ----!
  • jacobsor, on 12/30/2007, -0/+4Wavicle is partially right. On a technical level, ripping a CD you own to your own computer or iPod is making a "copy" of the songs, and it's not literally "authorized" by the record labels. However, just about anyone would consider this to be a "fair use" under the Copyright Act and therefore legal.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    The RIAA could never convince twelve jurors to find someone liable just for ripping a CD to their own computers (without "sharing" it), and even they know that. They aren't going to sue someone just for ripping a CD (without evidence of "sharing"). The RIAA is taking this extreme position to emphasize that this isn't "authorized" by the music labels. It's a silly argument, and everyone knows that.
  • Totalchaos02, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4You made an unauthorized copy of their trademarked name?
  • KloroFormd, on 12/30/2007, -4/+7"In Soviet Russia, you ***** the RIAA!"

    Fix'd. Proof is in AllOfMP3/MP3Sparks
  • jacobsor, on 12/30/2007, -1/+4Downloading copyrighted materials without permission is absolutely illegal (at least in the US.) It's just harder to prove in court given the way that P2P technologies work.

    The Supreme Court said so in the MGM v. Grokster opinion in 2005. It ruled that Grokster had engaged in "contributory" infringement (basically being an accomplice to infringement) because the "principal object was use of their software to download copyrighted works."
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.ht ...
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Done.
  • inactive, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Engadget will do anything for a few diggs, their articles aren't even the same anymore. Your comment was much more helpful that the engadget story iself.
  • jacobsor, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Sorry, no offense intended. I fully agree with you, except I think it's virtually dead certain that this would be considered a fair use.

    The fair use doctrine is a pretty mushy doctrine, so anything can happen. However, this doctrine tends to follow "majority rule" of what judges and juries consider on a gut level to be a fair use. E.g., the Supreme Court said it's a fair use to use VCR's to timeshift TV shows (after everyone and their grandma was already doing that), but not to download commercial music you haven't paid for using file sharing.

    I fully agree that it's virtually inconceivable that the RIAA would actually ever sue anyone for "just" ripping a CD (without engaging in file sharing), so I doubt this will ever be tested in court.
  • geminus, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4Artists make little or nothing off of the sale of CDs. It almost all goes to the RIAA lawyers. Many other countries find this deplorable at best. Bollywood actors enjoy celebrity status for their artistic efforts, and revel in their infamy. The west has always been known as capitalistic sue happy thieves with little or no benefit to society as a general rule. Support your artists and listen to radios, go to concerts, hell... send them letters. But fsck the RIAA and boycott the sale of CDs until the artists can be fairly compensated.
  • akatherder, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3I'm sure they'll find something to send you legal papers about.
  • Tippis, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Yes they have, by registering themselves as retailing companies. In doing so, they accept the existing laws, which means that they must authorize any fair use of their products. If they don't want to do that, they are free to exit the market.

    As for authorizing tasings and shootings, guess what: people *have* authorized the polise to shoot them IF (and that's a big if) they break the law. That doesn't mean that they've authorized being shot willy-nilly, without cause.
  • Fryth, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3The scary thing is that people really believed that it was true. Instead of setting an example of downloaders, the RIAA are in the position now where nobody is surprised by anything, even when it's an extreme situation and a complete fabrication. Way to go, RIAA/MAFIAA.
  • inactive, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3The case concerns infringement of distribution rights. The RIAA can use the phrase "unauthorized copies" all they want .. the fact is there is nothing in copyright law that says copying needs to be authorized. I took an unauthorized ***** this morning but until they pass a law regulating bowel movements, I'm in the clear.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3The problem with prosecuting downloaders is that you can only catch them if you're the uploader. If you're uploading your own content to them, it could easily be construed as you giving them permission to download it, thus making it legal. So even though downloading is also illegal, they don't fight you over it because they cant.
  • Mr.Gone, on 12/30/2007, -1/+4I'm going to get dugg into the basement for this one but isn't downloading just stealing? I mean I'm not sure where the idea of entitlement came from like we should all have the right to just take anything we want as long as we can vilify or justify it to ourselves. I agree that CD ripping is just changing the form of the media and is totally and without exception legal, but downloading information that you haven't worked/paid for is just theft, end of story. The whole "I'm fighting the power" mindset is pointless. It's a mask to hide the simple and irrefutable fact that downloading music with out purchase is theft. It's Robin Hood taking from the rich and keeping it. Just because the artists are loaded doesn't make it any less of a crime.
  • Dominatus, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4if the CD has no DRM, it is not against the DMCA to rip MP3s from it.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3This was pretty apparent from the beginning. They would have had to do some really sneaky stuff to catch the guy just ripping CDs.
  • edzilla, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3Yeah, but a some point, they will(hopefully) lack the money to keep on suing everybody in sight.
  • Zagor64, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3That is not a guarantee. There are no guaranteed profits attached to any work. A download does not automatically mean a lost sale. I could even argue that by allowing a download you could increase your profits because it gets your work exposure. I have in the past, downloaded a movie and after watching it I decided that I liked it and went and purchased the movie. My brother has a band, he has been trying to sell his music for a number of years and never really got anywhere until recently when his music got posted on the internet and guess what he started to sell more music. I am not saying that copyright infringement should be perfectly fine I am just saying it's not as simple as "it's stealing" so throw them all in jail.
  • andycr512, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Even assuming you're right (and in many, if not most, cases of what you described you are not), denying them profit != theft. If it did, it would be theft for me to try a sweater on in a store, decide I didn't like it, then leave.
  • Dylson, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2I hate the RIAA for the record...
  • Mr.Gone, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3But it does deprive him of the profits that are normally attatched to that work. No matter how you slice it or try to make it "okay" it's still theft.
  • jcounterman, on 12/30/2007, -1/+3Here's the problem. The RIAA is suing this guy for illegally sharing music. However, whenever they mention the music he was sharing, they call it "unauthorized copies".

    I think that the RIAA is hoping to bust this guy in court on sharing charges and use this as a precedent for future cases to nail people who ripped music in the future.
  • thailand1972, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2***** engadget for ***** up.
  • Mr.Gone, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2I whole heartedly agree, but the downloading that you speak of is the vast minority. There are several artists that offer up tracks for free to promote their bands, but I feel safe in estimating that 80% of music downloads are done illegally. I have very little faith in the self policing skills of your average human.
  • Wavicle, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2okay, if I'm partially right, I must be partially wrong. Since I already mentioned fair use would permit such a thing, and I mentioned the RIAA would not fight the point because they would almost certainly lose, which point was wrong?
  • andycr512, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2DRM is only one of the subjects the DMCA covers.
  • edzilla, on 12/30/2007, -0/+2Since when does the riaa have a number where you can reach them if the music sounds ***** on your CD player? We're not talking about a software company here...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.