OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

[forty-nine]

Hehehe.... yeah, right, sure! Google "RIAA suits" to see just how many
times they HAVE enforced the contract. Here's one locally that's still
ongoing but they're bankrupting the guy with legal fees so that's
enforcement of a kind... read on:

==========================================================
Music lover fights suit claiming he shared music illegally

Ofelia Madrid
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 2, 2008 07:04 PM
A Scottsdale man is fighting back against a record-industry lawsuit
accusing him of sharing 2,000 songs freely across computer networks.

The Recording Industry Association of America demands $40,000 from
part-time cabdriver Jeffrey Howell, who claims he did nothing wrong.

"They have no evidence of me giving copies to anyone," Howell said.

The association, according to Phoenix federal-court records, said its
agents could access Howell's music collection through Kazaa, an
Internet file-swapping Web site.

His case, begun in 2006, is scheduled for oral arguments Jan. 24.

Howell said all he did was transfer his CD-music collection to his
computer.

He did have a Kazaa account, but claims he had no idea his entire hard
drive of about 2,000 1970s rock songs was being shared with the public.

"As near as I can tell, they're saying that if they could see my music
that it must have been in my shared folder," Howell said.

The recording industry has gone after 20,000 people for sharing music
since 2000, after forcing file-sharing service Napster to shut down.

The case against Howell recently gained national attention after the
Washington Post reported that the record industry was going after folks
who rip their personal CD collections to their computer's hard drives.

That is incorrect, said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the record
industry.

"This is one of our plain old illegal-downloading cases," he said of
the suit against Howell. "This is not about making personal-use copies.
The record industry continues to have no objection to that."

It becomes a problem when people download music to their computer, then
share it with others.

Howell said he turned off the file-sharing setting on his computer a
dozen times and doesn't know what happened.

For Howell, this lawsuit has left him with a distaste for enjoying
music on his computer.

"I used to spend days playing with music," Howell said. He loved
putting together his favorite songs to listen to during his cab drives.

"Back in the day, everybody made mix tapes," Howell said. "Why carry
around 40 of your favorite CDs when you could put your favorite songs
on three?"

Howell said he has been representing himself in court because area
lawyers wouldn't take his case.

Every few weeks, Howell gets legal documents in the mail.

"Out of 30 pages, I only understand like 20 words. I'm reading through
these documents 20, 30 times trying to make sense of them," he said.

The record industry recently filed a brief for summary judgment. Howell
said it asked him to pay $40,000.

"Every time they file, it seems to be something different. And I have
to contest what they said. I'm sitting at home with a personal
computer, not making thousands of CDs selling them at a park and swap.
We have nothing and they're suing us," Howell said.

What's funny about that story is he is doing exactly what most people
do...faking ignorance.
I had a Kazaa account setup...I didn't know I was sharing them...BooHoo.
I tried 12 times to disable file sharing...BooHoo.

I've never enabled file sharing...never mind disabling it TWELVE times...so
he is looking to "pretend" that it is a settings issue on a PC that is doing
things beyond his control.
Maybe it will work.
He may get a jury that is full of people frustrated by PC's...maybe they
will find in his favor.
But anybody using Kazaa...far as I know it has but one intended purpose.

 

[caver1]

Out of curiosity, am I the only one here that thinks that one shouldn't
be an attorney (and not need to consult one) before going out and buying
a damn MUSIC CD?!?

Credit card contracts are one thing involving potentially thousands of
dollars in loaned money.

But man, it's a frigging music CD for 15.95 or whatever they charge these
days!!

It amazes me how many are okay with the way things
are heading, and make excuses for the way big
business acts.
I buy most of my music used thru junk and antique
stores.
caver1

 

[caver1]

That's a poor example.
The guy had a Kazaa account , yet had no idea he was sharing songs?
Bullshoot.
That kind of person should get sued.
I don't have a Kazaa account...know why ?
Because I buy CD's and rip them to my PC.
When they take me to court...then start the pity party.
But that dude was doing exactly what they said he was doing...why else
would you even have Kazaa?

He likes malware.
caver1

 

[XS11E]

That's a poor example.

It's one example. Did you Google "RIAA suits"

 

[forty-nine]

He likes malware.
caver1

LOL
Seriously...people seaching for Kazaa, or Limewire, or P2P...all know
EXACTLY what they are wanting to do.
A quick search of "free music"...brings up all these sites.
The word "100% legal" pops up too.
The file sharing part is the "100% legal" part...whether or not the mention
of "copyright" material comes up...don't know...don't wanna know.
People messing with this P2P stuff got nobody but themselves to blame.
It might only be about "$15.95" CD's...but is it worth going to jail or
getting fined ?
Not to me.
Ask my wife...."shopping is fun"...so just go BUY the GD music.

 

[forty-nine]

It's one example. Did you Google "RIAA suits"

No.

I bet though it is more of the same.

The people whining about this stuff think the whole world, and everything in
it, should be Free...and Open Source.
Why, if its on the Net...then its "public domain"...right ?
I bought the CD...I should be able to give the music away to 10,000 people
if I want ...right ?

Show me a link to somebody "sued" for simply ripping CD's to a PC.
Not a link where that is the defendants response.

But a link where the "suit" alledges just that...no file sharing involved

 

[caver1]

No.

I bet though it is more of the same.

The people whining about this stuff think the whole world, and
everything in it, should be Free...and Open Source.
Why, if its on the Net...then its "public domain"...right ?
I bought the CD...I should be able to give the music away to 10,000
people if I want ...right ?

Show me a link to somebody "sued" for simply ripping CD's to a PC.
Not a link where that is the defendants response.

But a link where the "suit" alledges just that...no file sharing involved

Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy
is stealing.
No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you
cannot stop these by also stopping legal usage.
Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were
pirates. Importing not fighting.
caver1

 

[forty-nine]

Do your own research where RIAA reps say one copy is stealing.
No i don't agree with piracy or theft. But you cannot stop these by
also stopping legal usage.
Even some of the Founding Fathers of the USA were pirates. Importing not
fighting.
caver1

Do my own research...lol
You are the one insisting on googling this BS.
Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?
Of course not !
Its about P2P music sharing...not ripping privately owned CD's.
It's a lot of BS being spread by "thieves" whom hope to drum up public
support by scaring people into thinking RIAA is after them too.

 

[XS11E]

Do my own research...lol
You are the one insisting on googling this BS.

And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are replying.

Can't find a link where the suit involves ripping a CD?

Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something, sorry, I
was mistaken.

 

[forty-nine]

And you're the one who doesn't even know to whom you are replying.


Did you look? I thought you were trying to learn something, sorry, I
was mistaken.

Whiners all sound alike...its hard to pick 'em out of a crowd...lol

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:

Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce.

Speaking of software licenses, this point right here is the first
problem. If the license is unconscionable, it is unenforceable.

Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved.

Post shrink wrap licenses rarely have this.

Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.

When you "buy" software, the authors are OFFERING a product under terms and
condition, you ACCEPT the offer by paying a CONSIDERATION, and the whole
transaction is covered by (usually) the Uniform Commercial Code.

The law may prohibit certain kinds of contract, and that's what you think
"fair use" does. It doesn't.

"Fair use" copying is available for:

1. Criticism,
2. Comment,
3. News reporting,
4. Teaching, or
5. Scholarship.

That's it. Even then, each of these exceptions is constrained by nature and
extent of the copying, commercial impact, and other considerations.

There is no "fair use" copying of music CDs, software distributions, or
other things we talk about here. Those events are covered under different
laws (i.e., Audio Home Recording Act).

So really there is 'fair use' copying of music CDs, but it's just
covered under a different law.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,

But there is for software distributions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

View nominations already submitted:
http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[On the Road to Damascus]

Since you mentioned the MI5 guy, what's with all that spam about?!
Initially I thought that it was just me or the usenet client that I'm
using but the shit is appearing in all the newsgroups that I subscribe
to. I tried to filter it out but it gets around my filters, by small
changes in the subject name.

He has schizophrenia that is not under control. For the moment he has
been stopped...apparently his ISP finally pulled the plug and he moved
to Altopia...and amazingly, they've pulled the plug on him too.

Despite his obvious insanity, he's clearly one hell of a smart
guy...check out his website, very well done.

http://www.five.org.uk/

 

[caver1]

You really need to review the definition of "contract." I'll get you
started:

Contract = a binding exchange of promises that the law will enforce. Each
contract must have a meeting of the minds and a consideration on the part of
all parties involved. Some contracts must be written (sale of real property,
duration of more than a year, etc. see Statute of Frauds), but the vast
majority do not. There are usually three elements to a contract: Offer and
acceptance, consideration, and intent to have the contract bound by legal
constraints.

The courts first have to decide if there is a
legal binding contract. Then they have to decide
if it was broken and if so by which party. Then if
the parties haven't settled out of court decide
what the remedy is.
There is no contract that the RIAA can take you to
court for breaking because there is non.
Back to the car analogies. You buy a car you
break the law by speeding. yes you can be taken to
court and fined but there was contract with the
state or anyone when you bought the car.
Under law you still must use it properly as set
out in law.
There are laws that have granted certain rights to
the user under fair use. There are others that
also set limits such as copyright infringement.
But these laws do not make for a contract between
you and the RIAA or Sony,UMI, etc.
caver1

 

[XS11E]

Whiners all sound alike...its hard to pick 'em out of a
crowd...lol

Morons all sound alike... it's hard to pick 'em out of a crowd but in
your case, it's easy.

I'm very you haven't the ability to comprehend what's being told you or
the intellect to comprehend WHO is telling it to you.

Bye.

 

[Daave]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:

But there is for software distributions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."

I guess I should have just said "is."

(Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)

 

[caver1]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:

Yes, I know. When I said "may," I was acknowledging that there "is."

I guess I should have just said "is."

(Then again that would all depend on what the definition of "is" is...)

This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
United States Code;

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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.

If you cannot have action brought against you
under this code for non commercial use for making
those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
of cds.
caver1

 

[Daave]

This is in Title 17 chapter 10 subchapter d of the
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the
United States Code;

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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.

If you cannot have action brought against you
under this code for non commercial use for making
those recordings Then yes there is fair use coping
of cds.
caver1

Yes, the fair use exemption for the copying of *music* CDs has been
established. My original quote:

Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm

 

[caver1]

Yes, the fair use exemption for the copying of *music* CDs has been
established. My original quote:

Although there may be no fair use exemption for software distributions,
there is one for the copying of music CDs (for personal, noncommercial
use). See Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. § 1008.

Also see "RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. DIAMOND
MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/180_F3d_1072.htm

I should have sniped. my reference to the
copyright laws was in answer to Heybub who thinks
that if he doesn't do any research he can hide his
head in the sand and say he is right.
caver1

 

[forty-nine]

Morons all sound alike... it's hard to pick 'em out of a crowd but in
your case, it's easy.

I'm very you haven't the ability to comprehend what's being told you or
the intellect to comprehend WHO is telling it to you.

Bye.

Problem is...I do comprehend.
I don't need to read some nerds opinion of fair use, right to use ,
constitutional rights, Bill of Rights, or whatever made up right to theft
that people seem to believe they have been born into.
All the links in this thread point to users of P2P programs with illegal
distribution of copyrighted material.
They are thieves...plain and simple.
They know what they are doing...and in the one case, deleted evidence from
log files.
If that individual believed he was within his rights of "fair use", he was
quick to try to cover his tracks.
But...I suppose being on a usenet group...most people here support file
sharing, as long as they don't get caught.
I have a strong moral backgroud with convictions that don't change because
some NG dweeb calls me a moron.