More on ripping CDs

[Nate the great]

There is an infringement case going on right now called Atlantic v. Howell. The RIAA is arguing that ripping a CD you own to your hard disk is infringement. This is not just a witness statement, this is part of their arguments in the case.

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. ... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

Curiously enough, back when suing Grokster, they said the opposite:

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. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...-brief-in.html
the legal brief:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp...plementalBrief
MGM v. Grokster:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/04-480.pdf

Some people here were panicked by the Jammie Thomas case. Well now is the time to panic. This is the case they will use to try to make ripping your own CD illegal.

I don't think it will work, but it looks like they will try.

[kovidgoyal]

No I think they are objecting to the "in his shared folder" part.

[Penforhire]

There is some debate elsewhere about their use of the term "authorized." Because it is so-far legal but, yeah, they didn't authorize me to do it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

No I think they are objecting to the "in his shared folder" part.

I politely disagree. The first link is to a blog run by a pair of lawyers. They also think it is aimed at ripping.

[kovidgoyal]

Well I'm certainly not a lawyer and I don't really understand legalese, but to me breaking down that sentence logically:

Clause 1: "Defendant converted into mp3"
Clause 2: "Defendant put converted MP3's into his shared folder"

Statement is Clause 1 AND Clause 2 => violation

Applying a little Boolean logic, that means

(NOT Clause 1) OR (NOT Clause 2) => NOT violation

Of course, perhaps applying Boolean logic to legalese is illegal ;-)

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Of course, perhaps applying Boolean logic to legalese is illegal ;-)

Nah, just futile. But give them a few minutes and they'll get it outlawed!

[Ervserver]

The recording industry has long had the belief that people should not be able to make backup copies of cds they have purchased. If you wanted to listen to a Boston cd in your house, car, on you iPod, etc. you would need to purchase the recordings individually for each device.

[JSWolf]

Sounds to me like the defendant ripped the CD and is or may be sharing the mp3 copy of this CD. If you don't put it in your shared folder for any program that accesses th internet to send or receive files, then you aren't going to be possibly sharing to the world.

[bingle]

Here's another article about this on Ars. They talk about the position of the Recording Industry over time, which makes it pretty clear they're unhappy about ripping in general, not just sharing: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...uthorized.html

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Some people here were panicked by the Jammie Thomas case. Well now is the time to panic. This is the case they will use to try to make ripping your own CD illegal.

Er, it already is illegal in the country that I live in. I've obviously overlooked the mass panic that has resulted .

[jamesdmanley]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Of course, perhaps applying Boolean logic to legalese is illegal ;-)

if the law was that easy to interpret we wouldnt need lawyers!