RIAA Says MP3s Ripped From CDs Are “Unauthorized”

I haven’t read the entire brief, but looking at the following quote:

“[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.”

It appears the RIAA is claiming the action of sharing the .mp3 makes it an unauthorized copy, not the action of converting the CD into an .mp3.

So based on the wording, if I left the file in its native WAV. format, does that make it legal? So, if I extrapolate this further, the RIAA’s point being that compressing to an MP3 format implies to some degree, that your going to distribute the file.  Well, I guess I can see their point, sort of. It however doesn’t address the idea that people might want to compress to fit more a digital player.

Seems like a change in tactics—make the compression of audio files illegal and you will quite literally, slow down the illegal transfer of the music.

“[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.”

The key word is AND. When the compressed file was put in his shared folder it was meant to be illegally distributed to fellow downloaders.

The RIAA isn’t asserting that the act of ripping and/or compressing the files was at issue; the issue was that the files were placed in the Kazaa Shared Music folder for distribution.

Nowhere in the brief does the RIAA assert that storing music as an mp3 is unauthorized in itself; the act of distribution is called out as the issue MULTIPLE times.  Your headline is extremely biased, and the quotes you use are taken out of context and used to distort the message of the brief.

“[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.”

“The key word is AND. When the compressed file was put in his shared folder it was meant to be illegally distributed to fellow downloaders.”

What about putting MP3s in shared folders so the Xbox upstairs can play them or the Onkyo receiver in the bedroom can play them?

“Nowhere in the brief does the RIAA assert that storing music as an mp3 is unauthorized in itself; the act of distribution is called out as the issue MULTIPLE times.  Your headline is extremely biased, and the quotes you use are taken out of context and used to distort the message of the brief.”

Section C on page 15 states “Defendant possessed unauthorized copies… on his computer and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies…”

Sounds like the copies were unauthorized & then they were disseminated.

The problem I see is that alot of programs default to the My Documents folders.  Perhaps he ripped them to the default folder & then either he or his son or whoever installed Kazaa & left the default folders as is & Kazaa automatically scanned for data to share.

Mp3s ripped from CDs are always “unauthorized.”  However, they do not always constitute “copyright infringement” such that they are “unlawful.” 

The author here and the opportunistic lawyers running the “Recording Industry vs The People” blog are abusing the public’s ignorance of legal minutiae in order to get everyone in a huff.

Pay attention to the terminology:
In order to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement for the act of copying, one must show, among other things, that an unauthorized copy was made.  Once a prima facie case is shown, it can be rebutted by the defendant by a variety of defenses, one of which is called “fair use.”  Fair use can apply to shield unauthorized copying from infringement liability when certain criteria are met, such as the copies being solely for personal use.

Thus, if the fair use defense prevails, no copyright infringement, and thus no unlawful activity, exists even when unauthorized copies were made.

This case deals with copyright infringement for the act of distribution.  In order to establish the elements of this infringement, it must be shown that unauthorized copies existed.  Thus, the plaintiff is claiming that the ripped mp3s are unauthorized in order to meet this element of the claim for illegal distribution.  Thus, while it is not unlawful in and of itself to make unauthorized copies for personal use, this act in combination with other acts can make one liable for illegal distribution.  They are NOT claiming that CD ripping itself is unlawful or constitutes infringement.  It is merely unauthorized.

Note that the defendant did not dispute that the copies were “unauthorized.”  That is because it is well known that ripping CDs is unauthorized (though not unlawful).

Note also that this brief is fully consistent with the RIAA’s previous statements in Grokster since the statements in Grokster refer to copying as not being “unlawful”, while here the copying is rightly being called “unauthorized.”

This is not legal advice and is worth what you paid for it.

Reading *is* Fundamental.

Why is it that so much of the blogosphere is ignoring the “and they are in his shared folder” part of the sentence? It is a bit awkwardly written, and I’m not one to defend those doucebags, but… The RIAA had already filed briefs against Grokster stating that although they don’t consider ripping from CD to MP3 as fair use, they believe it complies with the license granted to purchasers by the record company.

This is a non-story.

There is no “license” per se. If you buy or a given a CD you own the CD and may use its contentents for your own use, and the copyright statute has carven out fair use to permit the owner of the CD to make a copy (in any form or format) for the owner’s own use. It is the RIAA that tries to limit this fair use by calling it a defense to copyright infringment; but by its terms fair use is outside of the copyright and not a defense to infringment. This is an example of the “double speak” employed by the RIAA to add mud to the water. They are now trying to avoid the need to prove that infringment actually takes place by arguing that it is illegal to place a copy on your harddrive if the folder CAN be shaired, even if this quality is unintentional.

Of course following RIAA mindset - If I listen to the music repeatedly and then start singing - that is probably an unauthorized copy.  Especially if it is in a public place.  Of course I would really be in trouble if I record a conversation and a song is playing in the background and an unauthorized copy ends up on the recording.