http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Apparently it's illegal to back up a CD that you bought nowadays:



The folks at the RIAA can go suck a 12 inch hillshire. And I hope they choke.

and screw them! i own it, i'm not renting it.

Don't believe everything you read.

Here's the actual court document (which you should read):
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

I've seen this posted on so many forums with that basic line that the RIAA says you can't make copy of own CD now. The issue is he put them in a shared folder for KaZaA.

Key quotes:

"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"

"Defendant unlawfully distributed all 54 of Plaintiffs’ Sound Recordings by making unauthorized copies of the recordings available to other KaZaA users for download."

"In sum, it is undisputed that Defendant intentionally uploaded digital music files to his computer, and that those files were being distributed to other KaZaA users without Plaintiffs’ permission in violation of the Copyright Act."



The best part of the case is if you read further:
"First, Defendant readily concedes that he used KaZaA to download and share pornography files, and that he intentionally stored his pornography files in his shared folder"

Owned by the court system.

Anyways, it's funny how people hate the fact the RIAA goes after them for things that they get the most outrageous quotes and it gets published (now in the Washington Post). The key phrase here is the shared folder. Read the document, and you'll see why it becomes illegal.

EDIT: Also, if you read the defendent wiped his computer of KaZaA and the evidence when he got the letter. Imagine how the court views that...

EDIT 2:

From RIAA website:
"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."

It matches exactly the court case. The person put it on a shared folder - which the courts have upheld as violating copyright laws. The RIAA went after them. Guy fought it in court. Lost. Now he owes a buttload ($40,000+).

Whether you like it or agree with it, he broke the law (and the court's have upheld this). I always laugh when people fight it and they lose and have a huge fee after that rather than the small amount the RIAA orginally tried to get. That single mother comes to mind. Where she fought, had no evidence at all, and then owed $220,000.

Really? Sucks for them, I immediately put all of my CDs on my computer once I buy them and then onto my iPod. Is it illegal to listen to CDs you buy now, then?

Read above!

no, reading is for losers. id rather be cranky and irritable.

And ignorant apparently...:)

I read some where if you back up a dvd and then if the orginal is lost or destroyed you have to trash the back up. go figure.

[EDIT: never mind, no longer applies]

The RIAA gave up making money on music. Now their primary source of income is lawsuits.

It really sucks how i can't back-up games i own now a days. Stupid securom, BIOSHOCK IM LOOKING AT YOU :Colbert:

Yeah, that issue was brought up a few years ago, right before the whole suing spree started, I think.

that makes sense legally though.

For example:

"Joe" made copies of all his DVD's and then *lost* the originals at the pawn shop.

Hah, Ameeeeeeeeerica is at it again.

That statement tells me that they think backups are illegal. The shared folder has nothing to do with it. They are clearly indicating that the mp3's are unauthorized copies.

No, they aren't...

...what? They specifically stated that when it was in his shared folder, it's illegal. It has everything to do with the shared folder.

Try reading and understanding, Sithlord.

It's depressing who don't really understand how the record industry works ***** and moan about it.

Edit: that goes for both Sithlord and the Marc Fisher, the moron author of that article. Good lord, talk about ambluance chasing.

Does the MPAA provide any useful service any more? It seems like we'd all be better off if they just died.

As others have already said, I think you didn't read the full quote (nor the document!)

The MPAA rates movies and advocates for it's member companies. Saying we'd be better off without them doesn't make much sense, because even if it went away those companies would still be looking out for their best interests.

this is stupid they are so :downs: now adays

I did read it. I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Feel free to correct me but this is how I'm seeing this:

The original copy (the CD) is regarded as the only authorized copy and can be distributed (as a birthday present to someone, for example) freely. However, you can not distribute the backed up copies on your computer because they are not regarded as authorized (ie, they are unauthorized). A copy of an mp3 is a copy of an mp3, regardless of location on your computer. By placing the mp3 in the shared folder, you are showing an intent to distribute the unauthorized mp3's. I think placing the files into the shared folder is only related to the actual distribution of the copies.

Tracer: I simply have a different take on what the document says. If you disagree, feel free to explain instead of being a douchebag.

Note: I'm not trying to defend this guy. I just disagree with this whole deal with regards to unauthorized copies.

Wow. You're dense.

I don't get what you're missing.

Even on their website under what violates the law, they state "You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it."

Whether or not someone actually downloads it - if you put it in a sharing folder, you're considered as breaking the law.

I don't see why you're stretching the words so much to claim your view. The court document clearly states it became illegal when he put it in sharing folder. Their website says 1) It's illegal to make available in p2p network, 2) It's OK to make a copy of CD to hard drive (see my first post)

It says "no longer authorized copies" meaning they WERE "authorized copies" before being placed in the share folder.

So, what position am I in if I legitimately copy my CD into my iTunes library and the songs are available for others to listen to (and illegally download through programs such as myTunes or ourTunes) on a network? I would think that such a claim would leave it wide open to be prosecuted for such a case.

Demon: I think one of the issues was whether or not the document was consistent with the website. A "sharing folder" appears to be loosely defined.

Avenger: Contribute something worthwhile, please.

Apparently the RIAA once said that if you buy a CD, that it should be illegal to transfer it to your portable music player (I think they were talking about iPods specifically).

Don't have the link, but if anyone is interested in that story I could find it.

Got to love the RIAA.

Do the RIAA and MPAA have any usefull purpose at all?

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/reply/11metalitz_AAP.pdf

That's the thing you're talking about TSM. Also - notice though it was not just the RIAA in this. Other groups were part of that too (AAP, MPAA, SIIA, ESA, plus many more)

Here's the quote everyone went crazy over:
"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use." "

No. Their purpose has been negated by technology, society, and logic.

Artists should be able to gain notoriety through word of mouth and the internet, concerts should be held at venues with significant interest, and music should be sold directly from the artist. No MTV, no 60 dollar tour tickets, no lack of competition. Good music would surface from the fact that their music is good.

And the only thing the MPAA does is make it harder to release a movie that goes against the ideals of the catholic church.

The two are simply pimps.

I realy think that you need to FORCEFULY seperate all of your regulatory agencies from getting any sort of income from the industry they regulate.

one slightly off topic, but possibly the one the most needs it, is the FAA. They are too spineless to force companies to make changes that are being desperately called for by the NTSB, and will pretty much only do so after mulitple fatal or near fatal disasters occurr involving said defect. If they had no financial ties to the aviation industry (and the government made sure of it by checking that all people in their had no buisness relations with airlines beyond that of a paying passanger) then thjey would force these changes in a heartbeat.

But so long as all these agencies make money from the thing they regulate, they will not have the consumer as their top prioity when it comes to the regulating part.

I think I'm going to sue the RIAA for causing so much media attention, thus diverting me from real world affairs in which i may be otherwise interested.

Uh, the RIAA and MPAA aren't supposed to regulate anything. They're industry lobby groups.

I think you guys are wrong. I'm seeing a lot of articles cropping up that report the RIAA as saying ripping mp3's is illegal. Because they're not only going after this guy for sharing, but also for ripping.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/01/02/were-all-thieves-to-the-riaa.aspx

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35454/118/

(The second link isn't working right now, but I'm sure it will later)

Vinny, but where does it say that in the court document (which this is all based)?

The WP released a horribly informed article, and it spread like wildfire onto other sites. From what I could gather, we addressed all the points from your first source up above.

Quit using secondary sources, and use the primary source!

Okay I was wrong.