Suing HRC

It seems the RIAA believes it's illegal to rip CDs onto your computer:

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.

Radley Balko points out that Hillary Clinton has said that she has Beatles songs on her iPod, songs that she couldn't have purchased through the iTunes store, and wonders if the RIAA will show the courage of its convictions and sue her.

Comments

That's completely nuts. I've been collecting classical CD's since the early 80's - have about 15' of them in my sewing room. So I download the ones I like to walk and ride to onto my Ipod - and change them every couple of months or so. I'm sure my Belgian mares get bored with Beethoven and need a bit of Mendelssohn or Chopin or whoever to liven up their lives as they haul my wagon around. I do have speakers so they can listen to the music actually.... Draft horses love to trot to music and it beats country.

How on earth could I be prosecuted for re-recording a 1982 remaster of a 1962 recording of chamber music which was written in 1873 and purchased in 1985?

Greed hath no bounds.

Posted by theexog | December 30, 2007 6:33 PM

I'm pretty sure an RIAA lawyer said the opposite in front of the Supreme Court a few months back. I'm forgetting the details, but one or more of the justices was incredulous that it would be illegal for them to copy a CD they own onto an iPod, and the lawyer said, oh of course you can do that.

Posted by anon | December 30, 2007 6:41 PM

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

Posted by willie | December 30, 2007 6:46 PM

from the post article:

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, 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." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

so if I do this I'm stealing from ... myself? wtf?

Posted by bs23 | December 30, 2007 6:56 PM

Queue Clinton campaign stooge pointing out that the Senator could have covers of Beatles songs on her iPod. As in, the entire I Am Sam soundtrack.

Posted by Jake | December 30, 2007 7:18 PM

I'm sure the movie industry thinks that recording a TV show for later viewing is still illegal even though the Supreme court said it is not. I think these groups have to say this in order to leave a marker for any future court battles.

Posted by CarlP | December 30, 2007 7:46 PM

Idiots! This is exactly what we went through with cassette tapes in the 70's, not to mention VCR's and DVDR's. They lost then and they'll lose now if they push it. All they are gaining is bad will.

Posted by GPS | December 30, 2007 7:53 PM

Courage? Convictions? RIAA? These people prey on the weak and defenseless. They also try to make everyone (from college students to grandma) fear their wrath.

Seriously, though, I think the big deal was that the defendant had the ripped music in a shared folder on kazaa or something similar (from my vague understanding of the case).

Posted by Ben | December 30, 2007 7:55 PM

"I think these groups have to say this in order to leave a marker for any future court battles."

Actually, they have to say this when suing someone over illegal downloading because that's their only chance to say it in court without risking a massive countersuit for malicious prosecution, not to mention sanctions. Their argument is patently frivolous under current law, but if they make it in passing and a judge lets it slide, or better, adopts it and puts it in a decision and that adoption isn't appealed because the defendant would lose the downloading suit anyway, then it might not be considered frivolous in the future. "In passing," though, is key.

Posted by R Johnston | December 30, 2007 7:59 PM

Why do I think all these "entertainment-packagers" are going to be out of business pretty soon?...

Posted by RKU | December 30, 2007 8:13 PM

I believe when cassetts came out, the cassett makers paid a small sum for each cassett to some recording industry source and then the rule was that you could make 1 personal copy of any record you owned. You just couldn't sell that copy. I can't see where blank cds are any different, or any real difference between a blank cd and a hard drive. Except that maybe hard drive makers are not paying that small sum.

Posted by cw | December 30, 2007 8:20 PM

As a record collector for 30 years, it has always been my understanding that the music industry said it was okay to make a copy of music you had bought if it was for your own use. If they've changed that position it just goes to show what humongous dicks they are.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 30, 2007 8:43 PM

The RIAA's "convictions" are that they are large, and capable of using the legal system to bully people smaller than them.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | December 30, 2007 8:57 PM

Courage? Convictions? RIAA? These people prey on the weak and defenseless.

Certainly, but that's also part of the weakness of the RIAA. It's pretty difficult to find them suing filesharing service providers (like rapidshare, etc) because they know the service providers have lawyers who can legally defend themselves from the RIAA's silliness. Basically the DMCA has been used by these service providers to protect themselves from the RIAA, and the RIAA doesn't have to guts to sue anyone with real lawyers who really do understand copyright law.

Posted by Dan the Man | December 30, 2007 9:15 PM

How on earth could I be prosecuted for re-recording a 1982 remaster of a 1962 recording of chamber music which was written in 1873 and purchased in 1985?

I wanted to use a piece by the Vienna philharmonic in a film I was playing with (and I'm blanking the piece and the composer right now, but someone long dead and gone) and the royalty fee was over $100,000.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 30, 2007 9:18 PM

Draft horses? Theexog's comments suggest to me that he is amish, save that I would imagine the Amish have neither iPods nor internet access. So I'm confused.

Also: The RIAA are assholes. Big news!

Posted by John | December 30, 2007 9:23 PM

I believe when cassetts came out, the cassett makers paid a small sum for each cassett to some recording industry source and then the rule was that you could make 1 personal copy of any record you owned.

That was the case with DATS and it is still the case with Music CD-R's

Posted by Randy Paul | December 30, 2007 9:25 PM

Seriously folks, if you want to stop the RIAA and repeal some of the nutty extensions of copyright that have already been passed, and the nuttier ones that they want to pass, write your Congressperson. Congresspersons will go with the lobbiests and the celebrity witnesses if they think the voters back home don't care. Once they are aware that the might lose votes they suddenly start to see the light. Believe, being inside Government, I have seen the effect of some well timed voter complaints.

Posted by Rickstersherpa | December 30, 2007 9:38 PM

For what it's worth this just as applicable for Bush as for Hillary:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/16/gw-bushs-ipod-contai.html

Posted by Ari | December 30, 2007 11:21 PM

The Beatles should be public domain by now anyway, in a sane world.

The official policy of big content is that format shifting is to be blocked by any means necessary, that media will need to be rebought for all new formats that may come about. That's how they make their money, the repeated sales of the same content. "Now I have to buy the White Album again".

Unfortunately for them, our society has a viewpoint by and large where the effective value of this content is near zero. Music can be obtained on the radio for free and movies can be seen on TV, or rented for a very cheap price at most corner stores. Books can be checked out of any library, again, for free.

The thing is, in order to turn content into culture, the effective value NEEDS to be low enough for it to spread. And without turning content into culture, there would be no content industry. But people feel entitled to their culture (which, to be honest they probably are) so they take what they can get.

Copyright is a gentleperson's agreement, frankly, one that's been violated by big content.

Time to violate them methinks.

Posted by Karmakin | December 30, 2007 11:28 PM

Umm... it is possible (and legal) to put songs from a CD that you own onto your iPod ...

Posted by Gheby | December 30, 2007 11:54 PM

@Ari

You can't sue the king. That would be decidedly shrill and impolite. HRC's musical treason, however, is probably grounds for impeachment (or at least.a very "serious" examination by the Village).

Posted by Ben | December 31, 2007 12:22 AM

Gheby: Not according to the same people who say it's also illegal to download MP3s from P2P. Get the picture?

Posted by neil | December 31, 2007 12:37 AM

Didn't Congress pas a law in the early 1990's saying that it was legal to copy music that you have purchased for personal use?

Posted by Reality Man | December 31, 2007 1:22 AM

This is precisely why my product, Mark O Da Beast™ was created. MOD-B™ is a permanent encoded personal identitifier (PEPI). It's quickly and painlessly applied to the accessable body part of your choice--hand, forearm, neck, even forhead! Any place that can be convieniently accessed with the MOD-B™ scanner. Then, when you want to download a song, you simple pass your PEPI under the scanner and money is transfered from you bank account directly to that of the song owner. Fast, convienient, legal. Plus, no more middle man! MOD-B™ puts you and your favorite performer in the driver seat--together!

Posted by cw | December 31, 2007 2:39 AM

The original article said that ripping music was considered unauthorized copying. Then they said, no, this was only downloading.

Actually, the case is about the "in-between", i.e., whether the presence of ripped MP3's on a hard drive is a prima facie case for infringement - apparently even if they aren't explicitly offered for downloading. Or perhaps whether you have to prove that they were explicitly offered for downloading or were in fact downloaded by someone else.

Unfortunately, since judges love to extend the law, I suspect the individual involved will be found guilty.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 31, 2007 7:49 AM

Actually, the case is about the "in-between", i.e., whether the presence of ripped MP3's on a hard drive is a prima facie case for infringement - apparently even if they aren't explicitly offered for downloading.

That's how I read it which strikes me as ridiculous. Before a ripped copy of a CD I own gets to my iPod it must first reside on a hard drive. What the RIAA is, in effect, arguing, that only purchased MP3s and AACs can be used on an iPod or an MP3 player. I suppose that if I immediately deleted the files after copying them to my iPod, the RIAA might cut me some slack.

One of the fastest-growing segments of the consumer electronics business is the "media server." On the most basic level, both the PS3 and XBox can function as servers for potentially thousands of ripped music files. Dedicated servers can hold tens of thousands of files and play them throughout the house. Can you imagine if the RIAA got it in its head that each file in your typical 250-500GB server represented a separate infraction of copyright?

Posted by Roberto Rivera | December 31, 2007 8:03 AM

One of the fastest-growing segments of the consumer electronics business is the "media server." On the most basic level, both the PS3 and XBox can function as servers for potentially thousands of ripped music files. Dedicated servers can hold tens of thousands of files and play them throughout the house. Can you imagine if the RIAA got it in its head that each file in your typical 250-500GB server represented a separate infraction of copyright?

I'm waiting for Sony Media to sue Sony Games over the ripping-CD capabilities of the PS3. Maybe it won't matter because PS3 sales have been so poor?

Posted by Persia | December 31, 2007 11:29 AM

The only thing Hillary should be prosecuted for is choosing a song by Canadian schlock-crooner Celine Dion as a campaign theme song.

Posted by space | December 31, 2007 11:39 AM

Then there's the day in 1971 when I started recording LPs on cassettes.

And the day I figured out the chords to "She Loves You" and actually played said musical work.

And the day some time before that when I learned the lyrics to "Happy Birthday."

Not to mention songs that I heard through the use of ears and remember hearing.

Please, RIAA: Stop me before I infringe again!

Posted by Tirebiter in Sector R | December 31, 2007 7:21 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack & Ed Marshall

I am flabbergasted that Mr. Hack and Mr. Marshall haven't blamed the actions of the RIAA on the State of Israel. They must be getting weak in their old age.

Posted by SLC | December 31, 2007 8:59 PM

Well, actually the directory on the hard drive where the MP3s resided was a Kazaa share directory, apparently - which implies downloading or at least offering for download.

The issue at stake is whether OFFERING for downloading is infringement, whether or not downloading actually took place.

OTOH, if I remember correctly, you can share any directory on your system with Kazaa - in fact, some idiots share their whole C: drive which is really stupid.

So what I wonder is, not knowing the details of the case, is whether the directory was deliberately shared on Kazaa or whether the individual was just stupid and, while using Kazaa for legal purposes, shared his MP3s accidentally.

Seems like it would be hard to prove this case from either side without being able to establish intent - which is frequently difficult to do in court.

Hey, SLC - everybody knows how cheap Jews are - so they must be running the RIAA, right? :-)

I guess you hate Don Rickles for his old joke about Jews stamping on the floor and yelling at the landlord, "More heat!"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 31, 2007 9:53 PM