[pyre]

  > A ripped copy of a song put up online can be
  > as unique as a fingerprint

If they are just MD5'ing the file, then changes to the metadata could cause this fingerprint to change.

  > But, it isn't illegal to own pirated music. It is
  > just illegal to distribute them. So perhaps this
  > isn't a problem?

Record companies (IIRC) have successfully argued that streaming your own music to yourself is a 'broadcast/performance' to a single person. There are many ways that they could attempt to go after this.

[Arelius]

It's trivial to just skip the header and metadata sectors, and just MD5/SHA the actual bitstream. With a bit more compute resources you can do the same for the decompressed audio stream, but that'd likely prove less advantageous.

[RexRollman]

That's interesting, as I use Exact Audio Copy with Accurate Rip, which actually compares my rips to other user's rips to ensure it was done properly. This means that I have FLAC files that would compare to other user's; sans the differences in Metadata.

[pyre]

Well, when the BSA^wRIAA auditors come to your door, you'll just have to show them your CD collection! If you don't have any pirated material, then you have nothing to hide!

[RexRollman]

I actually no longer keep CDs. Since no one sells lossless music, aside from mostly indie artists, I purchase used CDs, which I then rip and throw away (Amazon is a great source for used CDs, by the way).

I like having lots of music, and paying for it, but I am not a fan of owning a physical CDs.

[brigade]

Presumably that's checksumming the decoded output, not the compressed bitstream.

[Arelius]

But in theory, if you are using the same version of the encoder, with the same settings, it should be pretty easy to end up with a bit identical compressed copy also, at least easy enough that it happens occasionally.