RIAA suing for copying legally purchased CDs to PC

[Moonliner]

Oh boy more goon squad antics from everyones faviorte thugs the RIAA.

They now claim it's illegal to load a music CD (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/29/riaa-suing-citizen-for-copying-legally-purchased-cds-to-pc/)you have purchased onto your computer.

Next up I expect they will sue anyone that plays a CD where people other than the purchaser can hear it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That link doesn't exactly have all the details. They didn't sue him because he had copies on his computer, they sued him because he had copies on his computer AND Kazaa.

[Kevy Baby]

That link doesn't exactly have all the details. They didn't sue him because he had copies on his computer, they sued him because he had copies on his computer AND Kazaa.AND those files were made available for sharing.

The defense that Howell went with was that he didn't place the files in a sharing folder. But the RIAA was able to DL the songs and thus sued.

The RIAA assertion was not that Howell simply ripped the songs to his computer, but that he also made them available for sharing.

Other than the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html) (which only references blogs), the only sources I can find supporting the OP are blogs.

A couple of good articles on the topic:
Judge sides with RIAA: file-sharing apps lead to direct infringement (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070827-judge-sides-with-riaa-file-sharing-apps-lead-to-direct-infringement.html)
Rip Your CDs; Go to Jail? Or Bankruptcy Court (http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/12/29/rip-your-cds-go-to-jail-or-bankruptcy-court/). Despite the article title, the article points out the real details of the Howell case.

[figment1986]

Note to self... never make the main music folder accessible to any file sharing software.. then again my sisters stuff is on the media computer and not my production computer or lappy.. though I happen to use her music from time to time without asking any questions after running a virus scan on the media computer

[BarTopDancer]

At this time, having Kazza or Limewire on your machine is putting yourself at risk for an RIAA lawsuit. Until the whole 'file sharing' and new media issues shake out it's best to not have file sharing applications on your machine.

[Kevy Baby]

At this time, having Kazza or Limewire on your machine is putting yourself at risk for an RIAA lawsuit. Until the whole 'file sharing' and new media issues shake out it's best to not have file sharing applications on your machine.Should they be de-installed or are we okay with just not starting up the program?

[BarTopDancer]

I have no idea. I presume that the RIAA is downloading music and then tracing where it came from. But I have no idea what they are really doing.

I think Limewire and Kazza are dangerous on a whole other level (viruses) and I have no issue with file sharing.

[Kevy Baby]

I have no idea. I presume that the RIAA is downloading music and then tracing where it came from. But I have no idea what they are really doing.Actually, you don't even need to download the file to see the IP address.

[mousepod]

Worth reading. (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf)

And donate to EFF.org (http://www.eff.org/), if you can!

[Kevy Baby]

Worth reading. (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf)I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

[BarTopDancer]

Very interesting. And thanks for the EFF link!

[BarTopDancer]

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

What concerns me is the blanket that can be cast to see what comes up without a judge or any proof of wrongdoing. I can't think of any other situation (besides homeland security) where this is allowed. Show a good reason to go fishing, then cast your small net.

It also concerns me that there doesn't seem to be a statue of limitations on this (see the college student charged for downloads done by roommates on a computer that is no longer in existance).

Finally, the people who are downloading music that they already own. They already bought the CD and for whatever reason they didn't burn the CD and instead downloaded it through alternative methods. Should they still be charged even though they already own the music?

This is a very slippery slope. It's no secret that I don't have an issue with file sharing/music swapping. I've also never used Kazza, Napster or Limewire to share my music. I do have an issue with the large, vague net that is being cast in a fishing expedition to see what comes up.

[JWBear]

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.

It doesn't say that at all. It points out, in great detail, why the RIAA's tactics are a failure, and then proposes a system that would allow for filesharing on a subscription basis.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I will admit to only having skimmed the article, it appears to be the see the same story of wanting to allow file sharing - effectively saying that it is okay for individuals to steal music. And I don't agree with it.

An artist has the right to give away their music if they want. But other artists who want to get paid for their work should get paid for it.Well, much of the article dealt with the methods the RIAA is using in its suits. While I agree that the RIAA should be allowed to prosecute people who are breaking the law, their use of illegal subpoenas and questionable definitions of who is responsible for the availability of illegal shared files. They've also been prosecuting people who have downloaded copies of music they have legally purchased (e.g., someone who was downloading songs they own CDs for because it was easier than the effort of ripping the CD themselves.

While I have no sympathy for someone who is illegally sharing music that gets caught, the article does raise some troubling questions about the way the RIAA is going about catching people and isn't just a "it's not a big deal to steal music, so they should just leave people alone."

[innerSpaceman]

Do we have to say 'hello' first, or can you send me a song you have before we become friends anyway? How good a friend must we be before sharing music one of us owns on the internet is as innocent as letting someone borrow a CD? I think the whole thing is a slippery slope of it's just too freaking bad that some things can be so easily shared among people. There's no way to stop it.

There's also plenty of ways to make money from it. So go ahead and find a price that people will pay for the ease of music acquisition.


But there's simply no stopping this kind of thing. You can't turn back time. And putting a finger in the dyke won't help. (Using the water analogy, and not the lesbian one.)