Happy New Year, here's hoping you stay out of jail!

Get it right... (0.00 / 0)

Jay, as much as I share your disgust of the RIAA - and think that they have chosen a business model that ultimately sucks - you should make sure you get your facts straight.

Jeffrey is not being sued for ripping CDs that he owns.  He's being sued for sharing the resulting files in a shared folder/p2p program.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/1...

---

by: MTSentinel @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 19:20:33 PM UTC

Even the Engadget version (0.00 / 0)

makes it clear that the RIAA is alleging exactly what Jay writes about above -- that ripping files amounts to copyright infringement.

If we're arguing for strict interpretation, Jay's parsing isn't inaccurate. The RIAA is going after someone who ripped a CD -- the major purpose is for ripping them into a shared folder.

Any more nits to pick?

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 21:29:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Get it straight (0.00 / 0)

Actually, Howell is being sued for copyright infringement. In their supplemental brief in Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA makes the case that the infringement began when Howell ripped the CDs to his computer, and continued when he made those files available in his Kazaa shared folder, ultimately leading to some of them being downloaded by other Kazaa users.

There are many nuances in RIAA lawsuits against copyright infringement. This one has taken on importance because it specifically links the act of ripping a CD to an mp3 on a computer and making it available for download, claiming that the act of ripping itself is a violation of a copyright. The RIAA upholds this theory on its website and in press releases.

Inevitably, this theory will be tested in court, and if found to be a valid claim, it will make criminals out of millions of the RIAA's client's customers--average listeners who rip CDs to listen to them on their computerized home sound systems, or iPods. It is interesting that the music studios would allow the RIAA to include this claim in their lawsuits, as it is not necessary to the inevitable final outcome for cases like Howell's. Their acquiescence equates acceptance of the action. But if the studios do not approve of the RIAA's theories, then it lends credence to the impression that the RIAA is a rogue outfit. Either way, the studios and the consumers loose.

It is really unfortunate that a business would allow its customers to be rendered criminals by allowing its agent to overreach their legal rights. No wonder the RIAA and the music studios are in such low regard by music consumers. It is contempt like this by rights-holders that leads to the disregard of copyright law by otherwise lawful citizens.

---

by: JC @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 21:45:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]