Lol, Riaa...

[Pancake Batter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html

Now, in 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.



Guess they might as well sue everyone with a PC.

[Zero001]

So if we buy the album and want the songs in our media players we have to buy the download as well? No more CD ripping even if we don't illegally distribute the songs? No more CD mixes of songs we've legally purchased? I don't quit understand it, but I think that's what they're trying to accomplish. CD & Downloads are now required if you're a collector

[Jupina]

what? they can't do that.

[Zero001]

what? they can't do that.

Apparently they can :swoon:

[Slavic]

Apparently they can :swoon:

The RIAA does not make laws, all of their copyrights fall under the jurisdiction of Federal Copyright laws, they can't just state what the law is.

Fair use

Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
2. the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
4. the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.[4]

The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works.

On a vaguely similar note, I just received a letter a few days ago from my ISP about some company, I'm assuming Blizzard, claiming I infringed upon one of their copyrights. Luckily for me, these letters are just warnings that my ISP is required to give me due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. My ISP just blocked access to one torrent site temporarily for me lol

[Havok]

Over here it's illegal to download songs for free but nobody really cares about that -- the police, I mean. It only really becomes an issue when someone uses the downloads for commercial use.

[Jaffa]

Thank god for england and its lax copyright laws. the only way they ever catch you is if you are stupid enough to use something like limewire and post material for sharing with others in your folder, had a friend who got fined for that.

I dont think that the case will go to the courts, its too dangerous for the music companies to risk losing, or even getting a ruling on it.

[LegalSmash]

Yea.. if the judge isnt patent/copyright -tarded hell throw this out faster than a fat bitch on an amusement ride at six flags...
sections of the copyright act covers your right to make archival copies of the product you purchase. computer hard drive = medium of back up.

RIAA will draw it out, however, and in the end, get dismissed if the guy has enough for fees. The scary thing about the RIAA is that their suits are a catch 22: They sue you, they seek dismissal with prejudice, leaving you with fees despite conceding the case.

The US custom is loser pays usually... by doing so, not only did they bully the guy but left him in financial ruin by running up legal fees in excess of whatever the fines would have been.

Many cases regarding file sharing have mentioned this, as well as the seemingly overaggressive nature of seeking the case and the damages sought. Judges have said several times that the damages are in excess of what the actual damages suffered by the company really is. The difficulty that has prevented a lot of judges from slamming these guys down is that many times, the people that are caught are not the idea defendant (the indian woman with many sngs on her computer, sued successfully, damages in excess of 200K, mind you, shes a waitress, nor are many judges completely tech saavy, nor has the law evolved to the level where tech is now...

Add this to the fact that much of the new law is heavily influenced by the entertainment lobby (DMCA, etc. ) resulting in very reduced standing ground for the defendant in these sorts of cases