RIAA: Putting Your Own CDs on Your Computer is Prohibited
In a statement that directly contradicts an earlier position from the famous Grokster case - RIAA lawyers in Arizona told the defendant in the case Atlantic v. Howell yesterday that he violated copyright law when he put music from CDs he had purchased onto his computer in MP3 format.
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format," the RIAA said, "and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."
Update: A number of people have told me I'm unfairly characterizing what was said. Perhaps someone can explain to me how the location of the file changes its legal status. I can understand changing the format being an issue, but that's passed the test in the past. Perhaps it's really just the sharing that's being objected to, in which case there's nothing new here - but the way the legal statement reads certainly looks like there are objections to putting the files on the computer at all. Otherwise why mention that part?
The blog Recording Industry vs. The People, origin of this and many related stories, pulls the corresponding quote out of the US Supreme Court case MGM v. Grokster:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
Is the industry's newest position one of a paradigm on the brink of implosion or an indication of a coming era of greater control than ever before? Is all of this being overstated? Perhaps we can look to our wise leader for an indication. (Hint: The Beatles aren't available on iTunes, so in all likelihood...)
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
So basically - how do you get your CD's on to those mp3 players - iPod or not? Does the RIAA want to compensate all these hardware manufacturers also? Come on now, RIAA stands for Real Idiots Accumulating Arrogance - in other words - they better think before they bite off more than they can chew!
Rex
Posted by: Rex Dixon | December 11, 2007 11:09 AM
lol "Real Idiots Accumulating Arrogance"
Posted by: Living Life Abundantly | December 11, 2007 11:16 AM
It looks to me like they are making the distinction perfectly clear: rip, but don't share. Note: I hate RIAA as much as anyone else.
Posted by: Nick | December 11, 2007 11:16 AM
They are idiots of course, but there is a subtle and crucial difference between these statements: the new one specifically refers to files being "in his shared folder" where the older one only talks about putting files on a computer and ipod. It's confusing because it seems like their talking about format changes: CD to MP3. But obviously what they care about is the sharing itself, not the reencoding of data formats.
Now, does it follow that because files are in a "shared" folder that they were actually shared illegally? No.
Posted by: Ed | December 11, 2007 11:18 AM
Ed, you may be right - but transcoding into a different format can be seen as legally significant itself, as well. Video sharing lawsuits, for example, have said that the site host is party to copyright infringement because they transcoded uploaded files into Flash.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick | December 11, 2007 11:21 AM
On the basis of what I've read so far, I'm with Nick and Ed on this one. The shared folder step seems significant. Marshall's point that transcoding "can be seen as legally significant" is true, but doesn't speak to whether it's the significant step in this case.
Like Nick, I despise the RIAA. The most favorable adjective I have for the RIAA is "self-destructive."
Posted by: Andrew | December 11, 2007 11:38 AM
Seems to me that what creates the infringement is:
Compressing to MP3 AND putting in shared folder
That "AND" is critical. If it had been an "OR" we'd have a major problem. But the fact that you have to change format AND put it into shared folder means that simply compressing/changing format is not an infringement.
Posted by: kayvaan | December 11, 2007 1:05 PM
The sheer fact that we're discussing whether it's "AND" or "OR" means that RIAA has won. I should be able to rip my CDs to MP3, put them in any folder I like, share them with anyone I like, with any program I like, for as long as I like. They should figure out how to sell their crappy music to me despite all that.
If you think my position is a bit extreme, that's because the RIAA has won.
Posted by: Stan Schroeder | December 11, 2007 1:18 PM
Thanks everybody for your comments, and especially you for yours Stan.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick | December 11, 2007 3:22 PM
This is just another ploy for the RIAA to inject another one of their hooks to get more money. Bad enough that the the real ones who deserve the money are the ones who make the least amount from day one. RIAA has become an Ogre for the Recording Industry. They would rather demand $1000's of dollars from some working mother who's 16yr old daughter DL'd a couple of Britney Spears MP3's than going after all the REAL piracy thats going on outside of the USA. Just another "Big Brother" stepping on us little ones when they don't get their way.
Posted by: linuxrocks | December 11, 2007 9:39 PM
Marshall--
I think the simple boolean logic lesson ("compressing to mp3" is different than "compressing to mp3 AND putting in a shared folder) has been stated clearly enough. What's more egregious, IMO, is perpetuating (intentionally? unintentionally?)the misreading of what "shared folder" means.
Did it ever even occur to you to read the original document? Here: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief
Let's pull some quotes.
"the Court asked the parties to address the following questions: . . . Did Defendant Howell admit on the record that he is responsible for the Plaintiff’s copyrighted material appearing in his Kazaa shared folder?" (p. 2)
"Defendant actually distributed the 11 sound recordings . . . from the KaZaA shared folder on his computer to Plaintiffs’ investigator" (p.3)
"it is undisputed that all 54 of the Sound Recordings at issue were in the KaZaA shared
folder on Defendant’s computer" (p.4)
"Defendant acknowledges that he saw evidence of other KaZaA users downloading files from the shared folder on his computer." (p. 4)
"Defendant authorized distribution by placing Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works in his shared folder, where they were then available to other KaZaA users." (p. 5)
And that's just the first five mentions of "shared folder." It's obvious (to anyone who actually *read* the brief) that the references to "shared folder" are in the context of use of the Kazaa file-sharing service.
In other words, in the Atlantic v. Howell brief, the RIAA is objecting to the user converting the music to MP3 and putting it in a shared folder that they knew would distribute it via the Kazaa file-sharing service -- precisely what they've been objecting to for nearly a decade.
But rather than address the actual argument the RIAA is making, it's quite convenient to pull a single sentence out of a 20-page brief and use it out of context to serve your own agenda isn't it?
I don't know if this is intentional and deceptive on your part. I doubt it. More likely you're just blindly parroting back someone else's deception because it conveniently falls in line with your own pre-determined opinions about the RIAA. But if you want Read/Write Web to be taken seriously, you need to show more integrity in your writing, instead of just parroting back what you read elsewhere because it *appears* to confirm what you want to believe.
For the record, I'm not an RIAA apologist. I despise them and their tactics as much as the next person. But what I despise even more are anti-RIAA zealots who use the same tactics of deception, misinformation, twisting of words and concepts. Adopting the same unethical strategies as the RIAA to smear those opponents just damages your credibility (especially when there are solid, valid arguments to be made in favor of file-sharing).
And almost as bad are the mindless lackeys that line up behind these unethical anti-RIAA propagandists and perpetuate the misinformation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Kirkpatrick.
Posted by: Greg | December 12, 2007 5:52 AM
Greg, that was a very thorough explanation of a perspective that many people have and sounds solid to me. You should take them smarts you got and start yourself a news blog - sounds like you'd do a good job of it.
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick | December 12, 2007 7:44 AM
Marshall
TechDirt already pimps this taco quite nicely.
Posted by: James Lewin | December 12, 2007 12:57 PM
This story is getting beaten to death by so many blogs right now. Look, we all know headlines like this get site traffic, but it kills the respect.
No one likes the RIAA, but this whole thing is taken out of context. The banana sandwich line is true. Once you rip music and SHARE it, yeah... that's not legal. I wish it was, but I would probably lose that argument in court.
Posted by: mikull | December 15, 2007 9:28 AM