Thanks, Udhay. Bad me for not following up on the case in more detail. And thanks for including the RIAA website bit -- I wasn't able to find it on the curent site, and IA has been wonky for a few days now (at least for me).
On Dec 31, 2007 12:20 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lawnun wrote: [ on 10:16 PM 12/31/2007 ] > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html > ): > > <snip> > > > >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.* > >You got it right kids. They're going after space shifting and fair use. > >This now eclipses desperate and moves right into utterly insane. > > Engadget say they're not actually suing the guy for this, though > they're still saying it is illegal to rip stuff you ACTUALLY OWN. > > > http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/ > > Okay, so we've done some digging into the RIAA's lawsuit against > Jeffery Howell, in which the industry is claiming that ripped MP3s > are "unauthorized copies," and it turns out that Jeffery isn't > actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and > several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal > downloading. As we're all unfortunately aware, that's pretty standard > stuff; the big change from previous downloading cases is the RIAA's > newfound aggressiveness in calling MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs > "unauthorized copies" -- something it's been doing quietly for a > while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a > pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market > factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge > -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot > here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that > it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for > their own good, eh? > > Also, see the below (from another list) > > From the RIAA's website at some point in the past, though it's been > removed: > > "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on > your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music > and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the > jogging trail." > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070516072606/http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand > > > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > >
