On Dec 30, 2007 9:52 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > get a load of this...it's not something someone can just make up > > 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) > > Craig Clearly RIAA is taking this stance (right or wrong - depending on your point of view, something that should not be debated on this list as it opens up a huge can of worms that has nothing to do with Linux) because a number of people who are ripping their legal CDs are then turning around and sharing it. In absence of that, the RIAA would no doubt have no bone to pick with those people even if ultimately it was deemed to be a copyright infringement (they said so themselves in the article). Sure the different OS' provide tools to rip a CD. But that could be used to rip a CD of personal recordings or other recordings that can be lawfully copied. Just like a photocopier can be used to copy copyrighted books or legal stuff (i.e. photocopying something you typed and printed off). Just because it can be used to copy illegal content doesn't make the photocopy industry law breakers. Now one could argue that CD ripping tools were designed primarily to allow the ripping of copyright music CDs (because lets face it, very few people create their own music CDs) so perhaps it could be argued that the tool was written primarily to be used for unlawful purposes. But I don't see it becoming a real issue to the point Apple, MS and Linux distros will stop providing such software. Personally I buy my music online (either iTunes or one other legal online service). For $20 you get 19-20 songs you really want on a CD. Whether you agree or not with the profits being made by people in the music industry, you can't deny that they should be entitled to a profit. After all do you go to work every day for free? Those who can do so are very, very, very few and far between. If you write a commercial application you would not appreciate it if it was illegally copied, denying you the royalties you deserve which in turn affords you an income to support you and your family. If you charge too much for it, it should not give people the right to illegally copy it. They only have the right to opt to not purchase it and let market pressure force you to drop your price. The same holds true here. Consumers can choose not to purchase music if they feel the price is too expensive (or profits unreasonable), not illegally copy it. So are the OS manufacturers law breakers? I don't think so. Will it become an angle of attack for the RIAA? I'd be surprised (but not impossible). My two cents (and only posting) on this OT thread.
