In class we have begun to look at how the entertainment industry and the courts engage new technologies, especially those which have made access and dissemination of copyright protected works increasingly simple and ubiquitous. With physical media came the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal Studios and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. With digital copies came Napster, Grokster, and BitTorrent. With streaming services like YouTube--which stands alone as the largest music streaming service on the Internet--we have stream ripping services like YouTube-mp3.
According to the European trade group IFPI (the RIAA's buddy across the pond), nearly half of individuals aged 16-24 use stream rippers to create copies of streams from various services. On Monday, September 26, 2016, the RIAA filed suit against the most famous of the stream ripping services, YouTube-mp3. I have included the complaint below.
Some thoughts to consider when you look through this complaint. Stream ripping has been a technologically viable form of copying since the cassette tape was invented and adopted. What is the difference between ripping a stream and recording a song off of the radio, satellite radio, Pandora? Does the interactivity or ability to control what you are hearing/ripping matter? Why do the IFPI and RIAA suddenly care so much about stream ripping?
Before I let you go, I'll give you a hint. Given this article, how viable is the argument that we are in a post-copyright age?