On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 22:51 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote: > (This is *really* far off topic IMO.) > > Craig White wrote: > > get a load of this...it's not something someone can just make up > > No, but reporters that want to sensationalize a story can do as much > or more damage by just selectively quoting and not providing context > (as well as not have much of a clue about the legal system or in > general). > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html > > > > Clearly Apple, Microsoft et al. are turning us into lawbreakers > > (probably Fedora too) > > Bah to piss poor reporting. Where's the link to the case in question > in that article? Why don't they quote more of it? > > I am in no way a sympathizer with the RIAA and their tactics. > However, I do have a soft spot for accurate information, and in this > instance, the reporting is just plain inaccurate. Whether that is due > to an agenda on the part of the article's author or just good, old > fashioned ineptitude, I leave to the readers. (I believe Hanlon's > razor may be appropriate here.) > > A slightly larger quote from the brief in question[1]: > > Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" > format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the > ".mp3" extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound > recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and > his wife's use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The > .mp3 format is a "compressed format [that] allows for rapid > transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by > electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol." Napster, 239 > F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the > compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no > longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, > Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted > recordings from his KaZaA shared folder. > > I have not read the entire brief, but what I read above indicates that > the position of the RIAA in this case is not that simply ripping a CD > is unlawful, but that ripping it and putting it the shared folder of a > tool like KaZaA is what constitutes "unauthorized copies" of > copyrighted work. > > I happen to think the RIAA are scum and that their lawsuits against > file sharing users will only continue to hurt record sales. But I'm > also appalled at the lack of attention to detail by the Washington > Post. Of course, I'm not surprised. I don't expect to get accurate > reporting from any major news media these days. :) > > [1] http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief ---- yeah, I stumbled onto that link of the filing too. Apparently defendant states that music went in 'My Music' and not into any KaZaA folder at all. I don't know that I've ever seen KaZaA but I am gathering that it searches your hard drive looking for things worth sharing. Probably not a good idea to install Limewire/KaZaA or anything similar these days - unless you're wireless on someone else's broadband spectrum ;-) I do agree with your assessment though, especially wrt to major news media. Craig
