[stevesnj]

NONSENSE!!

Slashdot | RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized

[shifuimam]

That article is fairly misleading. The lawsuit specifically states that the songs were copied to MP3 format and stored in his KaZaA shared folder - he was sharing them; not just ripping them to his computer.

While I am not one to ever say the RIAA does anything the right way, the Slashdot article doesn't really clarify what the suit actually said.

[Chuckit]

I haven't seen the full text of this one yet, but it sounds like they're saying both ripping the CD and sharing it are bad — and it sounds like believable enough behavior for them. One of Sony's main legal predators has already gone on the record with her opinion that making digital copies of a CD, even for personal use, is theft. "When an individual makes a copy of a song [he has purchased] for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

And some people say I lack respect for these clowns' rights?

[Cold Warrior]

in my RSS feed, the slashdot blurb did mention the shared folder part.

not that I have any love for the RIAA. They're ass clowns trying to litigate and tax their way to a workable business model.

[ghporter]

Since when did "accuracy" equate to selling magazines (or in this case virtual magazines)? If it got you to look, then you were exposed to their ads, and thus their work was done. It's the same thing as having a Page 3 Girl, but less honest.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It's the same thing as having a Page 3 Girl, but less honest.

And less bouncy.

[Dork.]

Aside from the KaZaa part, just based on what I've read of these statements from the RIAA folks, they are stating that making a copy of the music on a CD is an unauthorized use of the copyrighted work (which, strictly speaking, is correct), and that any unauthorized copy ought to be considered stealing -- that's the just plain bonkers part. In a very strict reading of copyright law, you could make that case. But Copyright is not necessarily about the right to make copies, it's about the right to distribute them. Unauthorized copies do not necessarily harm the copyright holder, and in certain cases they may add enough value to the consumer to justify future sales down the road.

If I find a place that I'm going to in a copyrighted road atlas, and make a photocopy of the map to help me navigate in the car without having to bring the whole book, it is true that the copyright holder did not explicitly authorize that photocopy. But common sense dictates that the photocopy is not a lost sale, since nobody would expect someone to keep identical copies of a bulky road atlas in each of their cars, when a photocopy of a page is much more useful while driving, anyway. Nobody except an executive of an RIAA-member company, I suppose....

[King Bob On The Cob]

At least in the US, you can have a copy of just about anything, as long as only one copy is being used at any one time. You're also allowed to format shift. Thank god for the Betamax case.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

At least in the US, you can have a copy of just about anything, as long as only one copy is being used at any one time. You're also allowed to format shift. Thank god for the Betamax case.

Unless that thing is on a DVD with region encoding, (or anything else that uses encryption to control access by region), in which case while making the copy is still theoretically OK, circumventing the Access Control mechanism for any reason (even for gaining access to non-copyrighted work or work you own the copyright to) is against the law. This makes format-shifting of DVD content practically illegal, since it is illegal to distribute any piece of software that can do it.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

NONSENSE!!

Slashdot | RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized

The RIAA quotes the Copyright Law without the explicit permission of the copyright holder of that law (in six copies, all signed and verified by a Public Notary, of course).

I SMELL A LAWSUIT!!!