cibomatto2002
Windows 10
Saturday, 29 December 2007
riaaintro.jpgWith this past weeks announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The Recording Industry Association of America , would begin changing its tune. However, in an inane display of hubris and futility, the RIAA presses on in it's tirade against the very consumers its partners rely on by (we're not making this up) suing individuals who merely rip CD's they've purchased legally.
The Washington Post reports on the case being fought by a Scottsdale Arizona man, Jeffrey Howell, who is being taken to task for ripping his own store bought CD's to his PC as a violation of copyright.
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.
If the RIAA is successful here, it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of American music consumers will soon be classified as criminals under the law for attempting to use media they've legally purchased in a manner they desire.
Since a move such as this would clearly change the way in which "Fair Use" is interpreted, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for the RIAA to press further and demand that music be played back only at certain times of the day, or on certain brands of equipment. How so? Well given that such a ruling would basically be saying that consumers have no right to listen to music they've purchased in the manner they want to, it implies that the industry DOES have that right.
Given the weakness and inanity of this argument, we hope that the Federal Court system hands the RIAA their hat and sends them on their merry way. However, with the recent judgement we reported on against Jammie Thomas for $9,250 per song she was found violating the copyright of, we are not so sure.
editors note: To clarify the issue, it appears that much of the Washington Post story was poorly phrased. In a follow up by Endgadget, it has been made clear that the gentleman involved is being taken to task explicitly for sharing the aforementioned 2,000 recordings. Still, the RIAA is fighting the case on the grounds that merely ripping MP3's represents unauthorized copying in violation of copyright, so our gloom-and-doom scenario is still a valid interpretation.
http://www.fastsilicon.com/off-the-...ng-people-for-ripping-cds-they-purchased.html
riaaintro.jpgWith this past weeks announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The Recording Industry Association of America , would begin changing its tune. However, in an inane display of hubris and futility, the RIAA presses on in it's tirade against the very consumers its partners rely on by (we're not making this up) suing individuals who merely rip CD's they've purchased legally.
The Washington Post reports on the case being fought by a Scottsdale Arizona man, Jeffrey Howell, who is being taken to task for ripping his own store bought CD's to his PC as a violation of copyright.
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.
If the RIAA is successful here, it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of American music consumers will soon be classified as criminals under the law for attempting to use media they've legally purchased in a manner they desire.
Since a move such as this would clearly change the way in which "Fair Use" is interpreted, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for the RIAA to press further and demand that music be played back only at certain times of the day, or on certain brands of equipment. How so? Well given that such a ruling would basically be saying that consumers have no right to listen to music they've purchased in the manner they want to, it implies that the industry DOES have that right.
Given the weakness and inanity of this argument, we hope that the Federal Court system hands the RIAA their hat and sends them on their merry way. However, with the recent judgement we reported on against Jammie Thomas for $9,250 per song she was found violating the copyright of, we are not so sure.
editors note: To clarify the issue, it appears that much of the Washington Post story was poorly phrased. In a follow up by Endgadget, it has been made clear that the gentleman involved is being taken to task explicitly for sharing the aforementioned 2,000 recordings. Still, the RIAA is fighting the case on the grounds that merely ripping MP3's represents unauthorized copying in violation of copyright, so our gloom-and-doom scenario is still a valid interpretation.
http://www.fastsilicon.com/off-the-...ng-people-for-ripping-cds-they-purchased.html
