I have many CDs.

I have ripped them all to MP3 files for iTunes, and enjoy listening to them that way.

I am, apparently, a crook.

No, I'm not selling those MP3s.  Heck, I don't even give them away.  But it is (according to the RIAA, the Recording Industry) an "unauthorized copy."  Apparently I missed all the brouhaha over this last week (being a bit otherwise preoccupied):

The RIAA doesn't quite say MP3s ripped from one's own music collection are illegal, but instead refers to them as "unauthorized copies." But the judge's question was plain:

Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an "unlawful copy" of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?

The answer was convoluted. The RIAA said the copies were unauthorized and that by putting the unauthorized copies in the Kazaa share folder, Howell was guilty of distributing copyrighted works.

The RIAA's website clarifies what it means when it says unauthorized copies.

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.

What does the site say specifically about ripping your CD or making a backup copy?

    There's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

        * The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
        * The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use – in fact, it's illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

So I'm a crook, but my crookedness usually "won't raise concerns."  Unless, y'know, they change their minds. 

I feel so much better.

Filed under :: Media - Music :: Media Moguls
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

As I recall, the same thing was true of "mix tapes." They had very little success stopping people from transferring songs from vinyl to cassette, didn't they?

Quoth Boulder Dude ...

I would love to have someone make the arguement that was made for VHS taping of shows and the taping from Vinyl records for recording from CD's and destroy the DMRC.

Death to the RIAA!

The major distinction, Avo, is that digital recordings are so easily proliferated and shared. That's about the extent of the RIAA's arguments I'm willing to grant.

BD, while not making Boston Mangler analogies, the RIAA (and MPAA) maintain that *any* "unauthorized" copying is stealing, even if it's just for yourself. Idjits.

Quoth Webs ...

The RIAA does a good job of pissing me off! I'm with Boulder Dude!

The RIAA and MPAA are still whining, crying and suing instead of inventing and being innovative. Back when Napster first came out they could have solved the whole problem by taking advantage of an underused digital market. Instead they sat on their butts and cried when the digital age passed them by.

If they would have spent some money and invested in a online system where music could be legally downloaded, they would have no financial worries right now. And this isn't a hindsight 20/20 thing. I have been saying the same thing since Napster came out and the RIAA started crying.

But it's the model -- and mind-set -- they've had since cassette tapes and Betamax came on the scene. The execs are scared -- and their lawyers are doing whatever they can to maintain their own jobs.