Even the RIAA isn't Ballsy Enough to Claim Ripping CDs is Illegal

Illustration for article titled Even the RIAA isn't Ballsy Enough to Claim Ripping CDs is Illegal

So a few weeks ago we reported that the RIAA had claimed that just ripping CDs was enough to get you sued. Later, jumping on the bandwagon, the Washington Post reported the same thing. Turns out, it's not exactly true. The RIAA claims that ripping a CD and then putting the files into a shared folder is illegal, which we disagree with but is a little less flabbergasting. The confusion arose with the wording, which called ripped copies "unauthorized."


What's the difference between unauthorized and illegal? Well, when the RIAA says ripped copies of CDs are unauthorized, they're pretty much saying they don't like it but can't stop you from doing it. When they say it's illegal, they're taking your ass to court and trying to ruin your life because you shared a Coldplay CD on Kazaa back in 2002. This isn't to say that the RIAA has improved its standing in our eyes — no, we still think it's the douchiest group of douches around — but even they know that no one will accept that ripping a CD in itself is illegal. [TechDirt]


Broken Machine

@Manos_Lijeros: Oh, I know about this. According to Philips, this is not a CD, as it does contain protection. It is misleading to sell this as a CD. However, the other author of Redbook, Sony, seems to think it is OK to put Rootkits on CDs....so there is apparently some room for discussion as to what the CD format allows.

Most CD protections can be eliminated by not allowing Autoplay to take a hold of the executable, or rip it in an OS where autoplay does not work. Since, for reasons other than ripping audio, I have autoplay disabled, does that mean I violated the DMCA to rip the audio? In my case it ripped no differently than a standard CD. Hmmmm.