RIAA Sues Man for Copying Legal CDs to His PC? Nope.

[admin]

Hopefully we got your attention. A news story has been circulating around the Internet (example 1, example 2, example 3) that essentially demonizes the RIAA for bringing a lawsuit against some guy who copied CDs to his hard drive. That would be preposterous. That would be appalling. That would be something too stupid to believe. And it is. Seems that there was not a whole lot of fact-checking going on this week (myself included) and the story was reported in a rather, shall we say, slanted fashion.


Discuss "RIAA Sues Man for Copying Legal CDs to His PC? Nope." here. Read the article.

[Johnd]

Ahh Clint. I substantially agree with you on the circus atmosphere about this debacle. However, once again, the liberal media (I know, I hate that term, but it is entrirely apropos here, and I am referring to all media that I've read concerning this issue), has only reported some of the facts. In fact, I am astounded that in my searches over this case, I have yet to find one media source that has correctly reported this fact:

This case is about file-sharing. In fact, it's about file-sharing on a massive scale...in fact, the entire Kazaa network. Taken directly from the Order For Summary Judgment:

"The files, available to all other Kazaa users for download from the shared folder..."

Perhaps you and your staff will be so bold as to be the "first" media to report this curiously omitted, but vital fact. Media can conveniently withold facts that they deem not worthy...the Courts are not so lucky. The Order for Summary Judgment can be viewed here directly:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull...erGrantSumJudg

Understand that although Summary Judgment had been ordered several months ago, the matter has been reopened, and the defendant has been afforded a chance to reply to the motion (in a couple of weeks). So hold onto your hats folks, cuz it aint over til it's over. I must say, at first blush, this case is a slam dunk in favor of the plaintiffs.

[GlocksRock]

As long as he wasn't sharing the files he ripped, then I don't see how the RIAA has a leg to stand on in this case. They seem to just be out there trying to bully everyone around, and it's time someone stood up to them and smacked them back into their place.

[gliz]

I agree you should not swipe artist work as a musician (bass player) I would not like that . But the RIAA is a dying industry.

[Johnd]

As long as he wasn't sharing the files he ripped...

That's the point GlocksRock: as soon as he made them available on the network...that is sharing. Period.

[Johnd]

I agree you should not swipe artist work as a musician (bass player) I would not like that . But the RIAA is a dying industry.

Well, I don't know. Copyright infringement is a federally mandated nono. I would think that anyone with copyrighted work would side with the plaintiff in this matter.

[jonnythan]

Thanks for clearing it up, John. I had read the actual story and the lawsuit is obviously about sharing CDs via a P2P network.

I agree with you 100%.

It's always funny to read a lengthy editorial about a totally incorrect news blurb.

[jinjuku]

AHHHHHHHH! CAN NO ONE GET IT RIGHT?

If you look at page 13 of the legal brief, he made music available on KaZaA. He isn't being sued over his fair use of material he purchased.

[jinjuku]

Well, I don't know. Copyright infringement is a federally mandated nono. I would think that anyone with copyrighted work would side with the plaintiff in this matter.

Copyright as we generally know it now came from the Berne Convention. It was held I do believe 1971 in Paris, France.

As a software developer that has been pirated from, I can see RIAA's side. Doesn't matter their distribution/business model. It doesn't give one the right to infringe another's copyright. There are alternatives, everything from iTunes to Napster/Rhapsody. I purchased USED cd's mostly. Some artist I buy their works new direct from them.

[jinjuku]

Thanks for clearing it up, John. I had read the actual story and the lawsuit is obviously about sharing CDs via a P2P network.

I agree with you 100%.

It's always funny to read a lengthy editorial about a totally incorrect news blurb.

It's more sad than funny. At least here there aren't 200 rabid posts about the evils of RIAA here due to an incorrect editorial. People too often take things at face value. I did just a minuscule amount of digging to find out the Washington Post article had it wrong.