RIAA against CD ripping

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer. The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings,writes WashingtonPost.

I hope RIAA goes to hell. It’s as simple as that. As someone put it well:

“Making a copy on your computer is part of the normal process of playing a CD on an MP3 player – not fundamentally different from making a copy of the music in the RAM of an anti-skip CD player as part of the normal process of playing the music. I’m willing to defend the notion of copyright and the reasonable rights of copyright owners, but this is going too far in my opinion (and it’s stupid – by the time they argue that buying a CD and ripping it for your iPod is as illiegal as pirating the album, people might as well save the money and pirate stuff).”

Maybe the cause of this stupidity is indeed what this Stanford uni professor (and board member of Creative Commons) said: that both sides of the fence are going into extremes to piss each other off now, without any logic behind their decisions.

5 Comments »

jeff wrote on December 30th, 2007 at 10:30 AM PST:

$17 was a lot of money for a CD when I was a teenager. They don’t deserve a shred of sorrow during their hopeful collapse.


Thom Holwerda wrote on December 30th, 2007 at 10:51 AM PST:

Am I lucky to live in The Netherlands. Dutch law literally allows for an infinite amount of copies for personal use, wether on your PC or on your ass. You can only get into trouble as soon as you share these copies.


Billy wrote on December 30th, 2007 at 2:23 PM PST:

This story (unsurprisingly) turns out to be inaccurate. (Not that your conclusion is necessarily wrong for other reasons, of course.) It’s a shame, but a reality, that these days you pretty much need to wait a few days before reacting to any controversial technology news because a ton of it is simply not true.

All the bored kids on Digg and whatnot love the controversy because a flamefest gives them something to do, but these days it’s better to wait a day or two to see what the facts really are, IMHO.


mikesum32 wrote on December 31st, 2007 at 9:31 PM PST:

The reason he was sued was actually because he put music in a shared folder.

Not that that actually proves sharing.


Dimitar Uzunov wrote on January 1st, 2008 at 5:48 AM PST:

jeff – $17 is even bigger money in poorer nations – thats why piracy is rampant


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.