Those MP3 and AAC files that you've ripped from your CD collection are still "unauthorized copies" in the eyes of the recording industry. In a brief filed late last week, the RIAA said that the MP3 files on a PC owned by a file-sharing defendant who had admitted to ripping them himself were "unauthorized copies."

Atlantic v. Howell is a bit unusual because the defendants, husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell, are defending themselves against the recording industry's lawsuit without the benefit of a lawyer. They were sued by the RIAA in August 2006 after an investigator from SafeNet discovered evidence of file-sharing over the KaZaA network.

The Howells have denied any copyright infringement on their part. In their response to the RIAA's lawsuit, they said that the MP3 files on their PC are and "always have been" for private use. "The files in question are for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use,'" reads their response.

After several years of litigation and nearly 30,000 lawsuits, making a copy of a CD you bought for your own personal usage is still a concept that the recording industry is apparently uncomfortable with. During the Jammie Thomas trial this fall, the head of litigation from Sony BMG testified that she believed that ripping your own CDs is stealing.

When asked by the RIAA's lead counsel whether it was wrong for consumers to make copies of CDs they have purchased, Jennifer Pariser replied in the negative. "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song," said Pariser. Making "a copy" of a song you own is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," according to Pariser.

At least the recording industry is consistent. Last year, during the triennial review of the DMCA by the US Copyright Office, the record labels made the case that although consumers could freely and easily make copies of music on CDs, doing so is not explicitly authorized by the labels. Since they have not expressly authorized copying—even for the purposes of making backups—the ability to make copies should not be mistaken for fair use.
RIAA: Those CD rips of yours are still "unauthorized"

The RIAA is unbe-fricken-lievable.
While I believe they have a legitimate point with regards to piracy sharing from one person to another, this argument regarding using YOUR OWN CD copies is insane and they should be slapped.
Any guy with an iPod who burned a CD to the iPod is a "thief" in their eyes.

The LAW has not changed. It was always legal to COPY music for personal use. It was always illegal to SELL it for personal profit. Just because "copybility" got better it did not change this.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Just repeating the point of the article to make sure you get it...

The RIAA is saying that it is "ILlegal to COPY music for personal use".
As for the second part, I agree whole-heartedly.
================================================== =======

IMO...
But at the same time, I think the law needs to be re-evaluated.

VCR created the capability to copy TV, which is ALSO copyrighted.
But what was the primary actual purpose of the VCR? Why does it come with a "Cable" connection?
A solution was to include an extra charge on VCR product sales to offset "copyright" infringement.
Perhaps it's time to consider something similar for the media that is now being transmitted electronically?

Let's face it.
There is a conflict going on that the RIAA just plain cannot win.
Doesn't a "truce" sound more feasible?

I thought this was already decided when the RIAA first went after the cassette tape industry...I don't see how CDs would be different...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

__________________
Jesus Was A Liberal

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

Back when cassette tapes first came out, the industry loved them because they were more mobile and make better use than records...

But when BLANK cassette tapes came out...giving the public the ability to MAKE tapes out of copyrighted material, the RIAA had a coniption fit and sued...and lost...

A CD or a hard drive nowadays is the same thing as a blank tape 20 years ago...a medium that has that same ability...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

So they need to make their profits by making their music and books accessible and easy to get as they are doing with ringtones, download sites, etc. The difference is that they will profit only by mass sales not by scalping prices.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

And the RIAA has turned what they CLAIM (you can't make an electronic copy of CDs that you legally purchased) into a legal precedent in an existing law-suit.

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.

"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."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

....

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

....

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

The article mixes the issues of "illegally downloading music you have not purchased" and "making electronic copies of CDs you legally purchased" a little too much.

Downloading music off the internet without a license is (by existing legal standards) unrefutably illegal.

But to take it to the next step of claiming that if you make a copy of your own CD, that's illegal is too much.
I've heard stories of the RIAA / MPAA wanting to get $$$ from the "second-hand" stores where a person goes and sells their CD, so another person can buy a used CD.
These corporations are going WAYYYY too far with this latest endeavor.

It's an absurd claim that would presume to make virtually every iPod user in existence a criminal.

I don't know but I just bought an Ipod and when I buy music from the Itunes site the songs will only transfer to how ever many devices you agree to pay for. So I assume its apples way of making more money. So others have caught on I guess.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

The point I was making is that any iPod user who uses iTunes to rip a copy of the CD music to the computer, so it can be transported to the iPod, would be violating the RIAA's self-proclaimed "laws".
Or puts a copy of any iTune song that did not come SOLELY from the iTunes library on their iPod, would likewise be breaking the self-proclaimed "law".

Suppose a person has an 8Gb iPod, which can fit 2000 songs.
He uses half that capacity, 1,000 songs.
And all of those are supposed to come from an online source? Assuming $1 per song? (or just subsist on the free songs and free podcasts?)

I don't know of any iPod user whose songs consist solely items they got from iTunes.
Obviously, those rare souls who ONLY put songs they purchased from the iTunes online store would be following the RIAA's "rule".

But let's be real.
They don't sell 160Gb iPods, with a 40,000 song capacity, expecting that all those songs are going to be purchased from an online web-site.

iTunes SPECIFICALLY has the capability to do what the RIAA claims is explicitly illegal.
So does "Windows Media Player".
Yes. iTunes STORE has protections as you describe, but that protection does not include the other areas that iTunes specifically is built for.