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
> > 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:
> 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.
>  http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAA SupplementalBrief
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
I do agree with your assessment though, especially wrt to major news
fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list