Here is a case to watch if you like to keep your music selection on your computer.
quote: 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.
I don't think this will fly, nor do I think they will be able to enforce it. I am worried that it will be illegal tho. Since so many people keep their collection on their computer, a new law prohibiting transferring your music could be used to target otherwise innocent people for nefarious purposes.
I am thinking that the mp3/ipod revolution will overwhelm any attempt at making legal copies of purchased music illegal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's insane. But of course maybe they are pushing their position that far so that they can get a conviction based on making copies with intent to distribute.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Or they are overstating it hoping for the courts to give them half of what they are asking for.....which is more than they are entitled to, IMO.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Yes it's insane, and yes I don't think it will fly either. Everyone has some sort of portable device these days, and the only way to put your CDs on them is to first rip them to your computer. Making that act illegal in effect encourages the alternative: purchasing content straight over the internet, like through iTunes. Doubt that's what the RIAA really wants, but then again they are jerks, so who knows. I'd leave the country if a law like that were ever passed.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Oh, good grief. Next thing, they are going to argue that libraries shouldn't be allowed to lend out CDs.
Then, after that, I can just see them arguing that only the individual who purchases a CD should be allowed to listen to it...that anyone else who wants to listen to it has to go out and buy their own copy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Or they are overstating it hoping for the courts to give them half of what they are asking for.....which is more than they are entitled to, IMO.
Well yes to the first part, the second has yet to be seen.
Unless you think by default record companies should have a negative dollar handicap on all civil suits.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Maybe next they can sue someone for taking such good care of their CDs that they don't have to buy them again every 2 years. And God help us all if we ever get a non-indie song stuck in our heads.
I personally send a $10 check to the RIAA every time I listen to one of my CDs, just to play it safe.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Unless you think by default record companies should have a negative dollar handicap on all civil suits.
That's a great idea. Why didn't anyone think of that before?
Maybe if the RIAA ever sues Disney, we can call it even.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is a great example of how desparation, combined with a complete inability to understand how the system that is causing the desperation works, breeds insanity.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It should be thrown out of court, and the RIAA forced to pay all legal costs. It's frivolous in the extreme. It actually makes much more sense to sue someone for replying to one of my e-mails with my original e-mail quoted in it.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Can someone explain to me why it's legal to sue someone for "stealing" something for thousands times the market value of the stolen goods?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by MEC: Can someone explain to me why it's legal to sue someone for "stealing" something for thousands times the market value of the stolen goods?
Go big or go home, man.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
It just seems too draconian for legal courts to even entertain such proceedings.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
According to this brief article on Engadget, the Washington Post has its facts wrong on this one. The RIAA is calling ripped music "unauthorized", but it appears that what they're actually suing this guy for illegal downloading.
It's odd, though. In both the Slashdot blurb on this and in the comments following the article on Engadget people are talking about his being sued for placing the files in a shared folder on his computer. I'd be interested in reading the actual brief and finding out for sure what he's being accused of.
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :