Should converting CDs to MP3s be legal?

Yes it should be legal. Once I’ve purchased the material I should be able to use it in any format/media I can convert it to. Is it illegal to make a cassette recording of an old vinyl album I own? Of course not.

Reproduction for personal use falls under “fair use” of the media. Loading CD tracks into an mp3 player for travel use is but one example. As noted in other comments, how is this different from the long-time practice of recording LPs onto cassettes so we could play them in our car?

I always understood I purchased a nonexclusive personal use right to that performance. If that is not the case and I need to repurchase the use right every time the format I purchased it in becomes obselete then a pox on the entire recording industry. What next do you want a payment every time I listen to it!

Since VCRs were sold with their only real use being to copy programs and movies off the air for personal use, how can it be illegal to copy what you already own for personal use?

I think the troglodytes in the RIAA should be put out of business.
They are pursuing a dead end strategy and they know it.
I think the governments antitrust people should take a good hard
look at RIAA with an eye to taking them down for good.

Will any product have to be used as the seller intended - no. Product use (as long as it is legal and not being profited from) is at the discretion of the owner. Making new and possibly unique uses of products only at the provider/seller’s option would eliminate creating market opportunities they are looking for in the first place.
Just because the product is music does not restrict the rightful owner to use the product how they want. Do I have to drink the bottled water from the container it came in - no. Can I re-sell it in a new package, that is open to debate and the disclaimers associated with the original purchase….

The lawsuit simply shows how desperate the RIAA has become. The courts have routinely held that this falls under the doctrine of Fair Use. Even the latest court ruling support this, so long as I am not listening to the same piece as an MP3 when my wife is listening to it as a CD; unless, of course, we own 2 copies of the CD. However, given the current climate in this country, it was pretty inevitable that the RIAA would reprise the lawsuits of years ago about taping TV programs for later viewing. Stupid and it will simply further alienate the general populous and the courts.

Assuming the CD’s were bought legally, it should make no difference if they’re converted to any other format, as long as they’re not “shared” illegally. If this is not the case, just how did the RIAA latch onto these particular people anyway?

Hypocrites forbid fair use.

It is personal use and the conversion to a more amenable format for my personal archiving or portability is no loss to them. If they really expect us to purchase multiple copies as every technological format develops, they will be left behind by the technology and demographics of the marketplace. Instead of paying lawyers to abuse and criminalize their customers, they should be spending money developing new models for profitability that respect the new technologies and their customers. Treating customers as enemies to be prosecuted is not a winning nor sustainable business strategy.
milo

Yes, it should be legal. This is another example of big corporations trying to control personal actions. In time, CD’s will be history, just as 8 tracks are now, so the owner of a recoding should be able to convert it to whatever medium he/she desires to keep it useable to them.
Gerald

As an independent artist, I fully support the rights of people to make copies of music for their own use. The RIAA (as well as the record companies) don’t want to change their paradigm of how to make money as technology changes. As a result they bring up lawsuit after lawsuit hoping they can change the world. Guess what? It won’t happen and they’ll just continue to alienate the consumers they rely upon.

This question has already been answered when the courts ruled that cassette copies of vinyl phonograph records were legal for one’s own use. Here the RIAA is simply trying to turn back the clock and revoke previously established fair use doctrine to squeeze additional money out of the consumer. The RIAA should be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time with this frivolous exercise.

Of course this should be legal. This is simply another way that a transitioning industry is trying to get a few more millions. With a change in technology, the music industry may not reap as much profit as before - we wouldn’t want that now would we? Company executives would have to make $6M/yr instead of $10M. Give me a break! When is enough, enough?? Sounds like a classic case of greed if one looks slightly below the surface of it all.

Back in the day… Yes, I am an oldtimer. Tape players were manufactured with the capability to ‘dub’. That is, make a duplicate copy of a tape so I could listen to music in the car while my wife listes at work. I regularly converted 8-tracks to cassettes. Nobody griped. In fact the manufacturers facilitated our making of duplicates. This also applies to format conversion (i.e.; CD to MP3, etc.).

Once we buy music in whatever format. We now own the music and should be able to listen to that music wherever we are and via whatever format we choose. I draw the line at resale and allowing another individual to get his music for free.

The recording industry is becoming greedy and disallowing potential competitors from coming in via the ’side door’. The free market system should be allowed to be flexible and to accommodate multiple media usage through a single consumer purchase.

My suggestion to the recording industry; “Get over it and let the free-market system operate by survival of the fittest.”

Jim

Actually what you have is another example of the result of supply exceding demand. We have a great excess of litigators in relation to litigation. Some operate by taking the proceeds from one victory to bankroll potential new conquests. Some targets will roll over and pay up, while others will stand and fight. Unfortunately, for those that stand and fight, the predators learn from each failed assault and come back with a new legal theory to challege precedent. Don’t misunderstand, there are many, many fine upstanding attorneys who serve us well. But, just as a very few truck drivers or motorcyclists give many a bad name, a small minority of lawyers create the vast majority of these painful cases.

Yes, one should be able to convert a CD to MP3.
This quote from your own description makes this a no-brainer.

“…it apparently contradicts arguments made by the RIAAÂ’s lawyers in a 2005 case in which they stated that making digital copies of oneÂ’s music collection for personal use was a protected right for consumers.”

Another example is one making a backup copy of software for “archival purposes”.

YES. If we disallow the transfer from one format to another, that line of logic will outlaw all media formats except the one used to record the music the first time. Will we all have to have recording studio digital tape decks in our homes and cars????

This is insane.

It should be legal for an individual to make an MP3 of his/her CD. The problem here is that it is a couple. Unless there is only one MP3 player and the CD gets locked away, two copies could be in use at any given time. I assume that this is the justification for this lawsuit. If they own two copies of the CD, there shouldn’t legally be a problem with two users converting it to MP3, unless their kids also convert it to MP3 or can use the CDs.

Yes of course I should be able to copy the music I purchase. This is a frivolous law suit and should be thrown out.

The court system was set up as check and balance with the other branches of the government. The government has a long histroy of protecting Americans from big business interests. Yet, now our court system is at the beck and call of whatever powerful or politically correct interest group makes use of it. There used to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; now there is loss of freedom, payments and debt bondage, and staying away from offending anyone.

The RIAA is clearly testing the limits of litigation. They have challenged the right of a consumer to record broadcasts, to duplicate media, and to convert from one medium to another. If they succeed in making it illegal to convert CDs to MP3, the very next step is being able to charge a “per use” fee for playing music. After all, aren’t you converting format when you read the pits on a CD to bias some transistors in your player and generate sound on your speakers? Am I guilty of copyright violation if I play it on four speakers instead of just two? What if my amplifier has an input buffer–am I illegally storing the music?

I am glad this is being taken to court; this will give the bench the opportunity to rule that a consumer’s purchase of a CD is not intended to obtain a disc of plastic and aluminum, but to obtain the information that is encoded upon that disc. As such, the consumer should have the right to store it using any method they like, and to replay it using any technology.

Of course, it should be legal. I’m about to convert all of my LP’s to MP3 because the equipment to play them is old and parts are hard to get and it’s not convenient to listen to them in their current format. They’re also fragile, hard to store and get damaged easily. CD’s are also somewhat fragile. So converting them is another way of preserving them. And besides it’s private property.

Ripping a CD for personal use is legal fair use. What muddies this case is that some of the Howells’ MP3 files were, inadvertently according to the Howells, in a shared folder visible through the Kazaa file sharing service. Hence, the RIAA claims the Howells unlawfully distributed copyrighted materials through Kazaa. The bigger issue is that the RIAA has resorted to terrorizing the very people it wants for customers - that’s a failed marketing strategy if I’ve ever seen one.

Yes, it should, or rather must be legal. If I buy a CD, I buy the right to listen to the work recorded, not only to touch the mere polycarbonate carrier it is printed on.
In the very moment I put the CD into my CD player, and play it, it is read and converted into a stream of bits that is then stored in the device’s memory for a short time to allow error correction, processed by my audio system and output through my speakers. Some CD players, especially in car audio or mobile devices can keep playing for half a minute or more just on stored data, in case the conditions do not allow reading the CD temporarily.
There is no reason not to allow me to delay that process by storing the data a little longer or play it twice while stored. Otherwise, error correction must be banned, too.
The case will fail.

The Music Industry, including the artists, are already earning too much money for what’s mostly poor quality recordings, most of which is just screaming & hollering; most couldn’t even sing a single Note (on Key) if their Life depended on it. Most artists have no talent at all but still make huge salaries. It’s all just massive GREED from the Music Executives right down to the Artists themselves.

Cecil said, “What next do you want a payment every time I listen to it!”

If you study industry trends and technological developments, that is EXACTLY what they want…

If music is outlawed, only outlaws will have music.

If he did survive, I sure hope he reveals himself and his story before he dies.

sorry, that comment was for the DB Coper question…

JIzRvd

BaAxeYH

ycMRgq