Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

www.washingtonpost.com

in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Whilst file shareing copyrighted material has always been illegal in most countries you have always been allowed to make a back up copy of a tape or CD for personal use in case the original was damaged or destroyed, this latest case by the RIAA is just the latest of many attempts to walk all over their customer base and erode their rights and the lack of action by the governments of these countries to stand up for their populations rights just go's to show how far in the pockets of corporate business our politicians really are.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This would make pretty much everyone with a full mp3 player a criminal. It would cost me roughly $40,000.00 to fill my ipod with tunes purchased from iTunes at $.99 per song. Not only would it require that I purchase all of my music twice (at least), it would cost a fortune.

It is funny that it is illegal, yet windows media player has a built in feature to rip your cd's. iTunes has it as well.

This is insanity and it will be a shame if this guy loses his fight in court. Actually it is a shame already since he even has to go to court.


Also, how in the world did the RIAA even know what he had on his computer in the first place?

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Also, how in the world did the RIAA even know what he had on his computer in the first place?

From what i've seen posted on other sites the RIAA has employed firms that use dubious methods such as hacking ect source

so this could be one explanation? and from what I've seen after a (very brief) look at the RIAA's site they will be trying to prosecute you for every time you have ripped that tape/cd, i.e. if you copy the same cd onto you ipod then your computer then your laptop they will going after 3 separate offenses?

reply to post by solidshot


It just seems strange to me that they would be able to build a case against the guy if they used illegal means to learn what was on his hard drive.

Of course, with the unwarranted wire-tapping and what not going on now, I guess he could have just been a "suspected terrorist" or something. That would have given them free access to spy on him. I doubt that is the case though.

I respect the man for fighting this in Court. I don't know the details or what will happen. I just do know that the industry has squeezing the public for a long time so I have little to no sympathy for them. I don't know where politicians play into all of this. If I were to make a guess I would say they are being paid to not change the laws.

Crazy.

Its like they want to shut down their own business.

Should that ruling be passed, who is going to actually buy music from a record label at the prices they charge, and then buy it again for their PC, or their MP3 player?

I don't know about US law, but in the UK, you are quite entitled to make as many back ups of CD's and tapes as you like, provided you don't sell them, distribute them or use them for public performances without permission. In fact, one of the big labels (Warner Music Group) has just agreed to allow Amazon to sell MP3's for download without copy protection.

I would imagine that a similar situation exists in the USA.

If it can be proved that he shared the music, then they have a case. As much as we might think it is ok to download music and films from bit torrent (i do it occasionally...) it is still illegal.

If he never shared it, then for one I don't see how they found out he ripped his music. Surely he must have done something to attract their attention. I doubt he is as innocent as some make out.

Originally posted by stumason
I would imagine that a similar situation exists in the USA.

It did, but the RIAA seem to be getting the powers that be to change the law to suit (sp) them, and i can't see things getting any better, the laws that govern what we can and cant do within our own homes and with our own property are continuously being tightened seemingly by the day.

The prices record company's charge for a CD (especially in the UK), the way they rip off the artists, and the way they exploit artists leaves me with very little sympathy for them.

A friend of mine had a recording deal, and she and her band were charged nearly half a million pounds for recording the album, before ANY sales.
The charges included sandwiches at £10 a pop, coke at £5 a pop and a messenger charged at £50 per hour.
In the end, the album wasn't released, and the record company are still sitting on it.

Record company's have been doing this for years - the high profile cases involving TAFKAP and george michael were cases in point.

At least the companies don't OWN the artists any more (which is what they used to do, in effect) but I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

That said, file sharing is illegal - althought creating a back up copy isn't, YET.

Originally posted by budski


That said, file sharing is illegal - althought creating a back up copy isn't, YET.

Well, that's the crux of the whole issue here. They are going after this guy for converting his CD's to MP3 and sstoring them on his hard drive. Not for file sharing.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Well, that's the crux of the whole issue here. They are going after this guy for converting his CD's to MP3 and sstoring them on his hard drive. Not for file sharing.

It would appear that, in the "Land of the Free", that would be a copyright infringement also. A sad state of affairs you've allowed to develop there, where one cannot even make a copy of something you have bought and paid for.

Hey, Americans, move to Europe while you still can! Pretty soon, you might not be able to afford the plane ticket....

Karlhungis,
my whole point is that there is zero reason for me to have any sympathy at all for the record companys - I pointed out that file sharing is illegal to make sure I stayed within the T&C.

reply to post by budski


OK, we are on the same page then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Fascinatingly, RIAA is contradicting the information on it's own website with this case:

[..]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.[..]

Source


I am bewildered. So which is which now?

Tbh i think they would do just about anything to outlaw copying, they have been trying since the days when the cassette recorder was introduced (and the vhs) and i don't believe they will ever give up trying, and successive governments and polititions seem to try to make things easier for them (after all when was the last time you heard of a government standing up for their constituents rather than big business?)

This is why you should pay 40$ like I do.

You are protected from MPAA RIAA you are 100% anon.

plus you download at 1.5 megs per second blows any p2p out of the water.

Dont be a noob and get sued use a newsbin service.


www.usenetserver.com...

Best usenet provider. unlimited downloads.

Protect yourself don't be cheap.

download an entire album in 45 seconds no joke!


750 Meg CD or movie file download it in 4 mins.



[edit on 30-12-2007 by NWOplayerhater]

It would appear that, in the "Land of the Free", that would be a copyright infringement also. A sad state of affairs you've allowed to develop there, where one cannot even make a copy of something you have bought and paid for.

Who says? The RIAA? I'm sorry but the last time i checked, they are not the law of the land.

Now this is just stupid. I rip every CD and DVD I buy so I can leave the disk safe in its case and have superior control of the data stored locally. If they're going to tell me that I can't do that anymore, then I'm just going to download it and burn my own. Might as well at that point. I mean if you kill a couple people you might as well go on a shooting spree, right?

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.

engadget.com

i just read the title and i made another thread but ill put that information on here.