RIAA Makes Outrageous Claims

By DMS
Posted Dec 11th 2007 9:50AM by Terrence O'Brien

The audacity of the RIAA's claim wouldn't be to surprising, given its penchant for overzealous attacks of digital media, if it weren't in direct contradiction of arguments made by RIAA lawyers in a case filed in 2005. In the case, MGM Vs. Grokster, representation from the RIAA explicitly said that making digital copies of music for personal use was protected.

Atlantic Vs. Howell is scheduled to have its first hearing on January 24. Here's hoping that this case gets tossed out, because if the courts find in favor of Atlantic, it will place all of us with digital audio devices on the RIAA's hit list.

[Addendum: Looks like the RIAA has also included language about the fact that the Howells put their files on file sharing networks, which could give the RIAA a leg to stand on here. That said, this case remains interesting due to the language the RIAA is including regarding one's rights to rip his own CDs.]

My Two Cents
I got over the closing of Napster, I got over the eventual downfall of Demonoid, one thing I will never even begin to try and comprehend is whether it's the RIAA kissing the major label companies asses, or the other way around.

There's obviously some ulterior motives behind the RIAA's action since the turn of the millennium. Piracy is not a new concept by any means. Before Napster, CD-Rs, and Limewire it was just as easy to record your favorite artist's new single off the radio using just a plain tape recorder.

While piracy may be one more nail in the coffin of today's music scene I have today it's certainly not the largest.


----------------
Now playing: Maroon 5 - If You Only Knew
via FoxyTunes
 

3 comments so far.

  1. Anonymous December 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM
    What I am perplexed about is why copying files to ipods or mp3s is any different than copying albums or cassettes to blank cassettes back in the day? You still had bootleggers and stuff, but none of this backlash like now.
    Just a question.
  2. Jennifer December 16, 2007 at 5:12 AM
    The main legal issue here is what is the definition of "fair use" for the brief was essentially saying that copying for your own use is illegal. That is just absurd.

    Fair use has to be defined if converting CDs to MP3s between yourself is illegal or is it with anyone and including yourself. The courts have not made it clear. A distinction needs to be made.

    I agree with anonymous question but I think the issue now is dealing with technology and realizing that you can copy a song with the same digital quality via computer. However the cassette tape quality is not that great. But, if you use a digital recorder that is an entirely new ball field because a digital recorder can convert to a mp3 file immediately.


    The problem that arises with the CD issue is that when you dub those CDs to a CD-R or CD-RW and sell for a profit people actually buy those on the street for maybe a $1 while no one will buy a cassette tape because the quality is not there. Further, who owns cassette tape recorders anymore?! A few but not a lot.

    Don't quote me but this is what I have observed over the years and that is my contorted reasoning. But who knows what the RIAA is getting at?"
  3. Anonymous December 17, 2007 at 12:43 PM
    I was not even thinking about people owning cassette players anymore. My point was how is file sharing now any different than when people used to copy cassettes. And the quality of a bootlegg cassette, was just as good as the original, sometimes. And people were selling them for $5 a pop. So, I still see filesharing as no different than when people used to dub cassettes. The record companies got upset about that shit too.

Something to say?