everyone hates the music industry. I'm not sure how the can legally clam this since I bought the disk the disk is mine to do what I want with it, but if that's true then when my disk/cd gets scratched they should have to replace it for free.

They're too greedy to see straight anymore. Otherwise they might notice that 'fair use' thingy. Or they might realize that if customers lose the ability to copy CDs that CD sales will actually *decrease*.

Does that mean my local Library is guilty of billions of counts of 'sharing' music?

Given precedent during the 80s with cassette tapes and VCRs, this ought to be a pretty open-and-shut case. Copying and distributing is the problem, isn't it? Or is the RIAA trying to alienate even those who are willing to pay for their clients' products?

Gee seems like 'fair use' comes in there somewhere... Oh yeah it's constitutionally guaranteed!

Message to RIAA, 'Like sand, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.' Everyone HATES you! By all means keep that ball rolling until you are eaten alive.

The Police better start pulling all the Mitsubishi Lancer GLS's off the road... they come with a built-in illegal weapon!

no more mp3 sales ...
this is a joke RIAA what are you doing?

So shouldn't the RIAA go after Microsoft for putting ripping capability in Media Player? :)

Somebody needs to file a suit against the RIAA for harasment!

Why doesn't the RIAA ever go talk about recording a song from the radio to a cassette tape? Everyone that remembers owning cassettes used to record songs from the radio. That was never illegal or even talked about.

Now that music is literally everywhere and in so many different formats, it's impossible to keep people from getting their hands on free songs. The RIAA is scared because they are trying to stop the inevitable from happening. Music going solely digital. CD's are an old and aging format. It's not practical anymore. They're too bulky and require you to buy all this extra gear to store them all. From CD racks, albums, shelves. Next thing you know, you've got CD's everywhere.

Look at the Ipod Shuffle. That thing is so tiny an can hold 256 songs and last 12 hours. Versus a CD that holds maybe 20 songs and requires a bulky CD player and spending money on batteries.

The RIAA needs to stop trying to sue everyone and work on a way to make both us and them happy.

Oh and they're in for a big surprise when they go to court. It is LEGAL for anyone to make backups of ANYTHING they own, as long as it's for their own personal use. This is true on anything, DVD's, CD's, Games, VHS tapes, etc. It's called protecting your investment. And if this is ever deemed illegal then we are going in the wrong direction towards advancement of technology.

since they can't make any money from music anymore, their new business is suing everyone's pants off. They must figure the profits from lawsuits will make up for their lack of profits in the music business.

I guess this could spell the end of the mp3 player(?). One would need to copy files from the cd to the computer to load them unto the mp3 player.

I wonder how this will impact those who legally download music and copy it to ones mp3 player?

I wonder if this applies to music downloaded from legal sites?

I think they are going to far by adding this part to the lawsuit.

Yes, I'm as outraged by this RIAA lunacy as the rest of the commentators here. And yes, I will continue to backup my music, software, and other data, as it is my right to do so.

However, we the consumers are not powerless against the big bad RIAA. There's a very simple way to stop them-- don't buy ANY music recorded by companies that are members of the RIAA. That may be a little painful for some, but we all need to act now to protect common-sense rights.

I for one am lucky to live in a community where there are many amazingly talented local artists, and I will buy their music--not that from Sony, BMG, or any of the other RIAA members.

Scott

So, my reaction is to never again purchase a music CD or DVD.

When I can't rip for my own use music (or anything else) that I have paid for, I will quit buying it. If I don't own what I've paid for, I won't pay for it. Sooner or later that is what everybody is going to have to do to send a message to the RIAA. They are really over-reaching on this one.

I'd love to see the RIAA try to push this in court. I could only imagine the Amicus briefs that would get filed against the RIAA. Any company that gets involved in music file ripping or storage would have something to say about it. Though it would probably help iTunes sales, it may not be good for iPods in general, Microsoft's media player would have to remove its ripping capability and every other company that has a media players that rips like Roxio and Musicmatch Jukebox would have issues with it.

I still buy CDs b/c I prefer the better sound quality that I get on the disk to what I get with most mp3s, but I think the RIAA is a big piece of dung.

On the same token.
if you legally purchase any mp3 on apple itune or amazon.com together with the DMR still there...
Is it now illegal to BACKUP your computer by
mirroring on harddrive? Tape Backup?
What about creating image your diskdrive?
or backup to DVD ...or online backup?
Even microsoft didn't dare to say that backup of my computer is illegal since now I has another exact copy of my computer O/S...
So is microsoft's own backup program that comes with vista illegal?...
since it back up my o/s and songs and everything shit that is in the computer...
come on MIAA?
I think they will end up lossing and then they will
end up creating a previous ruling that makes all copys legal.

Since when did Jack Thompson become head of the RIAA? This just smacks of one of his stunt lawsuits!

In New Zealand it's illegal to format shift. We are not allowed to backup our media at all actually as far as I know. However the government is finally coming out of the dark ages and is discussing making audio format shifting legal, which is what this article is about. But they refuse to do the same thing for video at this point.

So instead of 20 years out of date our laws will only be 10 years out of date.

There is a difference in backing up something you own and format shifting. This guy was shifting.

But I dare the RIAA to sue even 1% of the people who have done it. In fact I hope they try. Cause they'll go bankrupt in the process with court fees. There are over 300 million americans. I bet over 3 million have format shifted. At a random guess of a thousand $ each that's a cool $3,000,000,000 in court fees. And that's only 1%.

If the RIAA really wants to push this claim (that ripping audio tracks to a digital format is illegal), they should look within their own ranks first. Since several of the music companies are actually part of larger corporations that partake in various activities (such as software development, games, consumer electronics, television, etc.), there are numerous examples of hipocrisy among them. Here are a few I can see right off the top of my head:

Sony (major member of the RIAA) makes the PlayStation 3. If you insert an audio CD into the PS3, you are given a couple options: Play the disc directly; or "Import" (which is a politically correct term for "rip"). Choose "Import" and the PS3 rips the audio tracks into MP3 format to store on its hard drive, which is then used for playing the music or for custom soundtracks to play within games, etc.

Sony also manufactures portable and mobile electronics, such as the PSP, flash-based music players, Walkman cell phones and car stereos - all of which play MP3 files. In order to get MP3s onto these devices, you have to rip them from a source CD!

Not only that, but Sony also has a software division that creates and sells software that rips audio CDs into MP3 format! If you buy a Sony Ericsson cell phone, you get PC Suite for free, which includes "Sony Disc2Phone" software that rips audio CD into MP3 for your phone. Music and Video producers may also be familiar with Sony Sound Forge, Acid, Vegas and CD Architect - all software made by Sony that can rip or re-encode audio/video into different formats.

Time Warner owns Warner Music and they also own a cable company, which offers DVR devices to subscribers, so they can record television shows to a hard drive. The format the shows are recorded in is not the same as they were broadcast in - the DVR changes the encoding in order to save drive space - the same exact thing as ripping music files into MP3 does!

Universal Music Groups is a subsidiary of Vivendi, which also owns game developers/publishers (Sierra, Blizzard, etc.). Many games for XBOX360 and PlayStation are beginning to use custom soundtracks, where you can tell the game to play your own collection of music stored on the console hard drive - which is MP3 format ripped from audio CDs!

RIAA is overstepping their bounds if they choose to push this claim. Maybe they should ask some of their largest members if they REALLY want to call people thieves for using the very tools and gizmos their companies sell.

They called it unauthorized, not illegal. The illegal part was ripping them to put into a P2P sharing folder.

I think according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you actually are not allowed to make backups of that which you own if it is encrypted. All DVDs are encrypted, as are some CDs.

I would like to preface this by saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, a supporter of the RIAA's crackdown. I don't believe that pirating music (or movies or software, for that matter) is right, but that does not excuse the RIAA's approach to solving the problem.

However, in this case Mr. Raby has drawn an incorrect conclusion. The RIAA is not trying to argue in court that ripping CD's is illegal. I checked out the legal brief the RIAA filed to find out what they actually claimed (you can read it for yourself here: http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-co...lbrief.pdf). The key is on page 15, quoted above by Mr. Raby: "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 is not the act of ripping the CD's to your computer that they say is illegal, it is placing them in the "shared folder" (in this case, the Kazaa shared folder) that makes it illegal.

Mr Raby's conclusion, "This means that the RIAA is saying it could actually come after anyone who has ever used a CD ripping program to transfer tracks from a disc to a computer, regardless of whether or not file sharing was involved," simply cannot be drawn from this case, as one can establish an intent to share on the part of Jeffrey Howell: he put his mp3's in Kazaa's shared folder, where they are available for download by other Kazaa users.

Does anyone know how they obtain "evidence" of these music files they go for? -if someone creates song and names audio file similar to what RIAA thinks is theirs is it enough for them to start hunt after? Or they hack in everyone PC and check files?- If PC during investigation was hacked, then they can "implant" any file to any PC, and this should invalidate evidence as such.

Technically, they should win. I remember doing some research on the DMA, which is by far some of the most brain-dead legislation I have ever seen, and the only way you can legally make a copy of a cd that you "own" (because you never really own the material according to DMA) is to make a single "backup" copy via a cd replicating machine. As soon as a computer is used, it is illegal.

That's the law (as I understand it-I may have misinterpreted). I wish more people would pay attention to these copyright laws and realize how inapplicable they are to real life. They place absurd restrictions on people's right to their music and digital media and do nothing to protect the content-makers.

Overall, RIAA is a waste of an organization. They are simply leaching off the success of the music industry and the fact that you can choose any middle-aged person at random and sue them for copyright infringement, because everyone's done it even if they aren't aware of it.

The RIAA has obviously gone way too far. Its not everyone else's fault they don't understand changing markets and decide to sue everyone because of it. Since there seems to be quite a few people that disagree with copyright laws, these laws don't seem to reflect the will of the people. As a country supposedly for the people by the people, the people (Jury) could nullify the law.

Just a thought...

They can't be that dumb... I think they just want attention. What about the MP3s I buy off of Amazon?

Others have said it all but let me add my disgust at the greedy scums at the RIAA. Hopefully more people will reply here and fuel the outrage.

I have not bought a CD in two or so years and will not buy anymore until the RIAA changes its disgusting ways

RIAA, you know what you can do with your CDs!!

Sure would be interesting if a "hacker" out there scanned an RIAA Executive's personal computer, and or their children’s; heck even their lawyers and their children.. and posted their findings to the public.
Are they ready to prosecute themselves?

they cant do that is ridiculous!!!!!!

I own an Apple Ipod and my new Mercedes has came with an MP3 stereo. Both of these require me to transfer my audio CD's unto my computer in other to transfer them unto my Ipod or burn an MP3 CD to listen in my Car. Who should be blamed over here? Answer: (A) Mercedes (B) Apple (C) Me.

wow, they really did step over the line this time. Again, this is why i no longer buy audio cd's at all. Thank you RIAA for cleaning off my shelves for me. burned every cd from every artist i own in a fire last fall, my whole family did (36000 cd's roughly) and none of us buy music n e more. We won't buy till these lawsuits stop. By the way, our family reunion has over 300 people that attend every year, and none of us buy any more directly because of the RIAA!!!

I am totally against the RIAA. I don't know how these people sleep at night.

One thing I have read from several posts is saying that Microsoft would have to remove its burning software from WMP. This is not true at all. The RIAA is saying that converting its tracks from CDA (which I think is the standard CD format) to MP3 violates copywrite law. The act, not the software used. Example: It is legal to own a baseball bat. It is illegal to kill a clown with a baseball bat. The item used is legal, the act in using it is not. That said, I don't think the RIAA has any case here. They are using a slash and burn legal strategy. Countless lawsuits have been dropped by courts because the RIAA is bordering reckless negligence. The best way to stop these people is to simply never buy a CD again. That is exactly what I have done. That, and use proxies when downloading music. :)

What RIAA wants is user has to pay twice: one for CD itself; the other is for your digital file. To that end, they can cover whatever they lose.

What RIAA wants is user has to pay twice or more: one for CD itself; the other is for digital file. To that end, RIAA can cover whatever they lose.

Wow, what a wonderful opportunity to completely destroy the music industry! RIAA should aggressively come after every American that rips CD’s to their own PC’s, even those of us who do not share. The court costs will be astronomical for RIAA. And if they annoy enough people, music sales in ANY format will drop significantly. Can you imagine the joy in RIAA if their actions cause music sales drop by 25%!?!

Bring it RIAA, I’d just love to put the current music business out it’s misery.

Get over it RIAA. Resistance is futile. YOU WILL LOSE. Word to the executives, get a REAL JOB and a REAL LIFE! GO to work...

I hope they get even more ridiculous. Eventually we, the people, will have had enough. When that happens...well it will be fun to watch.

So true my man, we are all legally able to make copies of our investment and what we purchased. Anytime, Anywhere, that is the law. Technology will advance beyond this little roadblock.
BT

Too late, like trying to get the video tape back on the reel. What a ridiculous perspective.

To celebrate this monumental proposal I think I'll go download a bunch of Metallica (for free)! Good game Lars.

I mean, think about it. The evolution of technology isn't going to halt (or even slow) for these greedy Hollywood fat cats and their cronies. Digital media is the way of the future and many artists have begun to give the industry the finger and produce and distribute their albums themselves. Eventually, there won't be a need for most of the supporting executives and businessmen who are doing this. These guys are only trying to hang on to the glory days when they could control media absolutely when in reality their careers' are made obsolete by the digital music revolution. Give it up, guys, and go work at McDonald's already.

"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 important term is "AND they are in his SHARED folder", not CONVERTED

That's just the angle I see in this snippet, once I read the whole thing, I may retract this....

The RIAA has completely alienated their music loving audience. Record labels have continued to outsource their war against the customer to the RIAA, and will continue to learn a hard lesson: the customer is always right. Therefore, the labels who don't get this will continue to earn the loathing that they deserve. Unreal that this is still going on.

you got it wrong. everyone hates the RIAA but your interpretation of the lawsuit seems completely off. Its' already been said above in "Spin Doctored" but since most people, me included, took your claim at face value and emailed it along to friends before reading the whole thing and thinking that what they are suing for and what you've claimed are out of sync. putting the ripped audio files in a shared file of a pc with a p2p app loaded is stupid. not as stupid as the RIAA's witch hunt, but stupid nonetheless.

Got a USB ION turntable for Christmas. Can I transfer my vinyl collection gathering dust to MP3? Well I already started so tough nuts RIAA.

they'll probably select the most technophobic, computer illiterate jury ever for this case

I'm a lawyer, and no fan of the RIAA at all, but the the headline and article seem based on a misstatement of what the RIAA's lawsuit actually says. From the description, it doesn't sound like the RIAA says you can't make copies for your own use, it says you can't make copies and put them in "shared folders" so OTHER people can copy them. In other words, it's the sharing of the mp3 that makes it "unauthorized", not the copying for person use. I'm not defending the RIAA's position at all (I've got a huge mp3 collection, personally, and I don't care whether the RIAA thinks it's "authorized" or not), but at least try to be accurate in your reporting.

It is truly incredible how the record companies are suing their customers by proxy to recover pennies on the dollar of their losses from not adopting technologies for devices their customers want. I hope Detroit is watching this! They could learn how to sue customers for buying hybrids instead of wasteful SUVs because it makes them lose money.

Does this mean that all those new cars that are coming out with HDD's built in for "meadia" are going to be against the RIAA??

I've had it. I've bought my last CD. I'll buy DRM free music on the Internet on the RIAA can die.

[Couldn't agree more. -Rick]

This very action now makes having iTunes, Napster and any other online site illegal since the very tracks that you buy are coming from these very CD's and by that action now pretty much involves everyone. Even the President of the US since he has an iPod and has been seen with it. What; you think hes listening to meetings on that thing?? Heck no, he uses it just like the rest of us.
Now who do you think is loosing it here???

It's time to find the grounds here and shut down the RIAA as a RICO organization.

Man this new world order is outta control. Anything to get you in the system. "excuse me sir, you were going 1.5 mph over the speed limit and...wait.. whats that .. a blank cd that has Van Halen handwritten on it? Your going to have to come with me sir!" Step outta the car or im gonna tazer your ass!

Everyone is jumping onto the bandwagon with this but I'm not seeing where it says that copies are unauthorized if they haven't been made available for sharing.

"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."

Can someone point me to where the RIAA's brief says that simply ripping a CD to your own hard drive is illegal?

They will not stop until it's a pay per use system. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we can start our creating independent recording companies, who create original music that doesn't all sound the same, making movies with DECENT storylines, and videos that MEAN something.

Then the industry might fold up,but watch out they may put a tracking system on a cd,and you put it on your computer and it reports back.They bite the hand that feeds 'em !!

I think the key point everyone is failing to see is that the quote from Schwartz indicates that once the CD's are ripped into an mp3 format into his shared folder, they are no longer authorized copies. It's called the intent to share.
I personally believe this to be a bunch of nonsense, why not go after the big fish rather than hurt all these little people. Why not go onto any torrent website, search for a large torrent and get everyone transfering the thousands of songs... The question I'm asking myself, if they really are trying to say that ripping CD's is illegal even for personal use, why are they not going after iTunes for allowing the Ripping, or CDEX, or Windows Media Player for example.
Next, I'm going to be sued for playing my ipod at my desk where other people can hear the music. They will claim that I'm illegally distributing their tracks using audio waves.

the digital revolution leaves many people and companies seeking to keep their part of the profits. but the only way to do so, would be to hold back the evolution and development of humanity.

somehow the RIAA does not seem to benefit the future of humanity. Somehow they want more than what everyone else has. Music will not die, only companies who cannot evolve will. RIAA builds these walls that we will only have to tear down in the future.

How do they know what his "shared folder" is, or was? They could claim someone's 'My Music' folder, containing thousands of songs, is the person's Share Folder, and that the person changed it once contacted about the matter. Look at the lady having to pay over $200,000 to RIAA; what proof did they have there? Very little, yet the jury saw it their way.

and then burn a cd from it? Is that infringement too?

I agree, as everyone who produces clone CDs and sell them for profit can be pursued by riaa folks. But in real life they (riaa) are chicken to go for big fish.

Instead they are trying to scare little guy and say as putting media files in different folders (to share or not to share) could decide to be or not to be point.

Questions: 1. how they legally get data on what is stored on PCs? 2. Do they spy on every PC connected to internet? 3. what are the odds of putting riaa-evidence-files by minors, old peoples, or just by mistake into shared folder?

Who would think a while ago as putting files in different, not authorized by big brother folder in his own computer could land Jeffrey Howell in court!!

When use use these programs, the program gives the option of choosing a shared folder or to not have a shared folder. The more you share, the higher priority access it gives you to receive files from others. So the bigger your sharing folder(s) the faster download times you will get.

I think it is fair that record companies prevent ppl sharing music on a mass scale, so that record companies can get sales to provide incentive (profit) for them to invest money in creating recorded music.

Without the business side of things, ppl making music will have to do it as a hobby outside of their day job. Thus they will be having less practice at their art and as a result their skill level will fall.

I challenge anyone that is opposed to the RIAA to not only be negative in blocking the RIAA, but to also put some of their own money up to pay for an artist/band of a genre that they like to record some music for society to enjoy. Because the less money that the major record labels make, the less they can diversify their signed artists and the more we here only generic music. This is because the more fresh and innovative artists/bands are often also the higher risk investments.

"Music will not die, only companies who cannot evolve will." - but the quality does drop. A lot of major have been closing down in the USA.

And yes their are a greater number of total studios, but most of the new ones opening are a very low quality.

Per the article:

This means that the RIAA is saying it could actually come after anyone who has ever used a CD ripping program to transfer tracks from a disc to a computer, regardless of whether or not file sharing was involved. The organization's website makes this clearer by noting, "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings ... you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

This speaks volumes and contradicts what they explicitly stated just a year or two ago about ripping CD's being perfectly legal.

Based on the information released by the RIAA, what they did was crack the bought version of KAZAA which allowed them to see what was in other peoples shared folder through their kazaa client. This leads to another issue, they broke the terms of use of Kazaa by modifying and breaking (hacking) their software. I actually knew one of the developers of kazaa (Knew him as Priitk) because I used to game with him back in high school. So I won't be suprised if this is thrown out of the courts considering they illegaling obtained this information. It's like me accusing you of intent to illigally transmit copyrighted data because the only thing I knew how to do was save files to my desktop rather than a file that was clearly labeled "private use". I will be suprised if this case gets any type of foothold in court whatsoever.

If this happens....you should be able to sell your CDs back to the record companies for the same amount you paid for them. Maybe I am wrong here but I never saw any place on any CDs I bought that said you weren't able to make mp3 copies for your own backups. If I had known that I couldn't perhaps I would have chosen not to buy CDs after all?

Thats like a car company selling you a car and then later on saying you can't drive over 60 mphs anymore or we will sue you....even though they never told you about this before.

So are they going to start suing Apple and whoever else is selling songs to us without copy protection?

Actually, it's like selling you a car and then letting people ride in it who didn't make any payments.

To the RIAA his is about two violations. One is converting a CD to another format or bit rate (Bit Shifting?)and the other is about sharing. Consider this; ...the defendant assaulted AND robbed the victim or, ...the defendant kidnapped AND raped the victim. The RIAA wants to make bit shifting illegal. The RIAA intends to sell you the music in the format you need it in. If you want mp3 or wma for your portable music player then you buy it that way. If you want higher quality, uncompressed or lossless music such as wave, FLAC or an un-yet developed format to play on your home sound system then you buy it that way. The RIAA has been looking for a way to eliminate the CD and sell music digitally. When they do pull the plug on the CD format, in 2-5 years, this will be the only way to buy music. But... they have to eliminate your ability to take one format or bit rate and convert it into another. That strategy does not eliminate the PMP or the home A/V media network. It only demands that you buy the appropriate format from an RIAA approved source and possibly using an RIAA approved codec. The software (Nero, MS, Winamp etc) and hardware manufacturers (Receivers, networking equipment etc) WILL fall in line to accommodate whatever the RIAA, and MPAA, dictate. That is the only way people will buy the hardware to be able to use the music they bought. Another thing...Fair Use is moot and a null argument. It is already dead. The RIAA and MPAA say they are behind the concept but have managed to make it illegal to use any tools to do so or, use it. You cannot copy a simple DVD unless you want to use 2-3 different software packages, maybe deal with hexedecimal anti pirating code stuff if it is HD and spend a whole lot of time working it out. Try backing up a DVD-Audio or SACD disk. Once CD or any other bit shifting is illegal, even temporarily such as CD to wave to mp3, you won't be able to back up anything. It will be back to the 1:1 CD copy machine that the RIAA has approved if anything. We, the consumer have to figure out a way to STOP BUYING LICSENCES and start buying the product whether it is Windows XP, a CD or a DVD. Personally, I am letting the whole Hi-Def, big screen, HDMI, HDCP digital thing pass me by. I just put in my app for the coupons for the converter boxes. I'm not even getting rid of my 3 year old 27" TV. I will probably scrap my intended music-server-network plan. Who really needs all this any way? To Keith, the guy who burned 36000 CD's; CD's will probably be worth $30-$40 in 5-10 years. Current, and older, CD/DVD players will also be worth more. Just some thoughts from someone who has been thru the reigns of vinyl, Quad, 8 track, cassette, VHS, Beta, Digi Tape ad nauseum. I'm just plain tired of it all...

not to defend the RIAA (what I think of them is too crude to be posted), but this story is being overblown by a Washington Post reporter who refuses to change his story. The legal brief does NOT say ripping CDs is illegal, rather that sharing them is.

Want the real story?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/01/rip_this_and_sue_that.html

the reality of the market is that young people don't even think of buying CDs these days. everyone seems to think music is free property, like air.

It's pointless to fight it now, what you need is a new marketting model.

You know the final nail went in? when they closed napster.
If the recording companies would have agreed to subscription pay (like napster suggested), before all this started to be a seriously huge uncontrollable theft plague, they would still be raking in the profits of yesteryear.

Only law enforcement are unable to use evidence that is illegally obtained. Police can not trespass on your property, break into your home, and collect evidence to be used against you in court. The RIAA can. They could physically break into your home and take pictures of your computer screen to use as evidence if they wanted to. Sure, you could press charges against them for trespassing, but they could still use the evidence they illegally obtained against you in a civil suit.

As for the claim that it's illegal to rip a CD, well that's utter BS and they know it. They are getting way out of hand and I really hope more bands do what Radiohead did and just release their CDs for download by donation or something on their websites.

The real thing going on here is not the obvious:

Since USA Justice is based on antecedents, the objective is to create antecedents; RIAA agree with some dude to sue him, and tells the dude how to defend itself (on a convenient but hideous wrong way).

This way, the judge sentence is a precedent that helps future sues.
bit a bit, the case turns favorable to RIAA.

Is for that reason that RIAA makes lots of apparent misleaded accusations to chossen citizens.

It is past time to get even with the RIAA and their scum lawyers. As consumers we need to (1.) Boycott the music and entertainment industry. Refuse to buy CD's, tapes or attend concerts and movies. This will hit the entire industry where it lives. (2.) Set up a private legal fund to counter sue the RIAA for big bucks in these frivolous lawsuit cases that were dismissed. In cases that were dismissed the harassed parties should recover all of their lost time, expense and pain and suffering for the stress caused. Several million after expenses per case should do it. This two pronged strategy should help remove some of the excess funds from the RIAA and their scum bag lawyers. Fight fire with fire.

If one plays cover-music "live" (aka your local bar band) that "legally" the bar owner must pay a royalty fee to BMI (etc.)? A bar where I once plyed was hit with a pay-a-yearly-fee or shut-er-down. (I've heard that if even "happy-birthday" is sung... fee's are "legally" owed).
It's time to stop ALL this nonsense & start limiting the length of TIME on a copyright (why shouldn't I still get paid "royalities" on work I did 20 years ago?

With the crap they mostly feed you now-a-days, why does any want to buy music anymore. I've maybe bought 5 CDs in the last 5 years. I have no interest in the Brittany Smears crap that passes for music.

Plus you can subscribe to Rhapsody and stream to an audio box. It works really well and since you don't have a true track on anything in your possession, the RIAA really can't bitch and moan can they?

Even then, I mostly listen to older stuff on Rhapsody or look into newer stuff that is not overproduced and overhyped.

The bar's making money and the band's making money. It's only fair that the artists who wrote the song make a little, too. If only they got most of that money.

But if the bar owner wants to make a copy of his CD to play at home and doesn't distribute or sell that CD, then he/she should be able to do it.

The RIAA wants you to buy all the songs you already own on CD all over again as MP3s rather than rip the CDs you already paid their clients for.

That's I believe is called a shake-down.

RIAA's Supplemental Brief: "Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted sound recordings on his computer and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.". "Unauthorized copies" means "illegal": ( http://www.riaa.com/physicalpi...ne_the_law ) "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." Mark Fisher got it wrong?

Come on people, this is legalese. The plaintiff, the RIAA on behalf of one of its members, does not authorize any other copy besides the purchased physical one. That is their stance and it always has been. It is the court's interpretation of how the law applies in previous cases that gets consumers a "fair use" doctrine to operate their legally purchased consumer electronics. That has not changed.

It is important to realize, however, that the RIAA is firm in its commitment to turn us all into criminals. They are well financed, have considerable lobbying clout and are extremely persistent. Eventually, they will succeed. Perhaps when they do, and their entire customer base is either locked up or too afraid to purchase a CD, they will see the error in biting the hand that feeds you. With no funding from their now defunct music labels, the RIAA should then go away.

In an effort to prevent the mass criminalization of intellectual property utilization, a legal firm needs to step up to the plate and lobby on behalf of consumers. The consumer needs protection from these toll barons in the form of collections prohibitions and limitations. It is completely inconceivable that the toll barons of copyright law continue to collect into perpetuity for something that was slammed together in a studio in one afternoon, while the legitimate toll barons of patent law, who's inventions were labored over for years, have limitations of such short duration.

I call upon our next President, whoever they might be, to tear down this Law!