Ah, the RIAA it at it again

[anysia]

[I]n an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: 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.

“I couldn’t believe it when I read that,” says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.”


I agree, I thought you had to DISTRIBUTE music to be charged with copyright violation?


The RIAA actually removed this section from their website, forgetting that people tend to archive such things:

“If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that’s great. It’s your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.”

Yeah, change your own friggin' 'mission statement' and think no one will remember what it used to say.

Comments

[mexicanjewlizrd.livejournal.com]

I agree, I thought you had to DISTRIBUTE music to be charged with copyright violation?

Dear god, no. All you have to do to violate copyright is do something the original owners don't want you to. Notice how on the start of all those DVDs you buy it says you can't screen them in public (with very odd terms of "public" too)? You don't actually _own_ the music. You own the physical CD only, (which you can do what you like to) with the control of the contents dictated by the RIAA/(c) owners. Some allow for one copy to be made for archival purposes (you play your copy and keep the original safe), some federal laws overrule some (c) owner's desires... but really, MIX TAPES are illegal. Recording music off the radio is illegal too. Making any copy of (almost*) any song from any source for any purpose is illegal.

* naturally, some artists don't mind. But they usually don't have big labels publishing their work.

That all said, that doesn't make it right in my mind. The laws need to be changed, and fortunately, the courts seem to almost always favour common sense. Just a shame that they all need to be fought in there first.

Regarding their mission statement: they can change it to whatever they like, whenever they like, the law is still behind them. (but I agree, its a bothersome trend which amusingly, only puts more media attention on the subject so more people know about it, and thus, more people do it)

[discordia13.livejournal.com]

Yep, Above is correct. And since introducing the DRM legislation copyright laws regarding music are even more cryptic.

Whats worse is even if it may be legal in your country to make fair use copies of music, the RIAA appears to be able to throw a law suit at you and get you extradited (KTHX John Howard).

I'm curious though as to how the RIAA knew he had the music on his computer if he wasnt distributing it through a system like KAZAA.

[anysia.livejournal.com]

He didn't share them, or hand them out, or allow people to dl them from his computer. I also would like to know how they knew he was archiving/backing up his music.