I just... I can't... I'm speechless...
In a stunning move and what absolutely has to be an April Fools joke in December, the RIAA is now claiming that it is against the law to rip a cd YOU BOUGHT to your personal computer. We're not even talking about sharing anymore, we're talking about personal use. Somebody really needs to step in and take these fools down a notch. They are absolutely stepping over the line. From the Washington Post:
"Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.
Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.
Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
This has to be seen as an act of desperation. They haven't been able to curtail illegal downloading so now they go for the source.
On second thought though, how would they know that this man had "illegal" songs on his computer? Unless he was sharing them, how would they know? Hopefully this story get's a bit clearer in the coming weeks.
"Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.
Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.
Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."
This has to be seen as an act of desperation. They haven't been able to curtail illegal downloading so now they go for the source.
On second thought though, how would they know that this man had "illegal" songs on his computer? Unless he was sharing them, how would they know? Hopefully this story get's a bit clearer in the coming weeks.
posted by Big Scott at
3:47 PM
1 Comments:
Three posts in a month? Does this mean you're finally back... like, for real?
As to this article, yeah... the RIAA are a bunch of dipshits. And I mean that with all due UNrespect. The untilligence and backwards thinking of these people completely baffles me. They could be making BOATLOADS of bank if they were to embrace the technoogy instead of trying to fight a completley unwinnable fight. It's like trying to fight drugs. It doesn't work. But unlike drugs, it will get worse and worse until the record labels are out of business (which is a good thing in some ways - but truly I always hate to see companies go out of business; even if it is by their own stuidity).
The movie industry (MPAA) is just as blind and make the most outlandish accusations and threats that it's hard not to laugh. So the moral of the story is... yeah, support Radiohead.
By
drewbacca, At
11:28 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home