RIAA Backs Down when Grandmother's files counter claims.

[JMS]

Larry,

Stop making sense. It'll make it harder for people to justify breaking the law.

Dic, as long as you can afford a lawyer to represent your interests you aren't breaking the law and the RIAA won't pursue you.....

The moral of the story here, you just want laws to apply to poor folks and want precident set in our legal system by large corporations sueing folks without lawyers?

[ACW]

I REALLY hope she still decides to proceed suing them.

[Dictator]

Why do you think they dropped the lawsuit? Cause they're a bunch of sweet hearts takeing pitty on an indigent grandmother woman? Scum bags likely scared her half way to death.

RIAA is about setting a precident here. And yes I do think they dropped the lawsuite because they were wrong. They're just hopeing they can scare most folks into a settlement and keep their precident alive.

Acutally, it appears to me based on the article you posted that they dropped the lawsuit because they likely used an investigator not licensed to practice in the state of Texas. NOT because they are wrong about the ownership of their music.

How can you claim formate MP3 is illegal when radio stations are broadcasting free music over the airwaves hundreds of thousands of time a second.

You do realize that when a song is broadcast over the airwaves, the Artist and the recording company still receive royalties right?

Copy rights have been expanded in this country since the 1970's to an unreasonable leval. Copyrights were always supposed to be incentive in order to promote inovation. Today they only serve to styfle inovation and profit third party corporations, rather than the artists, scientists, and authors.

Copyrite laws exist to prevent theft of work and ideas.

Dic, as long as you can afford a lawyer to represent your interests you aren't breaking the law and the RIAA won't pursue you.....

The moral of the story here, you just want laws to apply to poor folks and want precident set in our legal system by large corporations sueing folks without lawyers?

People have gotten lawyers and gone against the record companies. They've lost more often than not. Why? Because the RIAA has the law on their side.

People sue others all the time who cannot afford lawyers. That's not the issue here. The RIAA doesn't know right away the financial circumstances surrounding the thousands of people they've brought suits against. I didn't know that poor people should be exempt from being sued if they violated copyrights.

If these people didn't want to be sued, they shouldn't have stolen. It's simple. Why don't you get it? Larry already told you the RIAA isn't against people putting mp3s on their computers. They are against people SHARING THEIR MUSIC. The guy in the article you posted in the other thread wasn't sued for having mp3s. He was sued for sharing the folder.

[JMS]

Uh, you do realize that, in the US, copyright was established in the Constitution?

That was way back in the days of 78's, wasn't it?

United States Constitution... Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So Larry a few thoughts. First off RIAA isn't an Author, inventor or Artist. It's a company which doesn't represent any of those people. Second off "limited times" has expanded significantly today over and above what the founding fathers ever considered. Copy right laws today do not "promote progress", they lock up rights rather in order to secure profits.

The folks profiting aren't the inovators, and the system doesn't work for the peoples advantage.

[JMS]

People have gotten lawyers and gone against the record companies. They've lost more often than not. Why? Because the RIAA has the law on their side.

Well if RIAA didn't they are actively working many paths to make it so. They are setting legal president, they are also getting congress to pass new laws which further tighten intelectual property rights in the US... ( As if we needed that.. Most of the world doesn't even rise to our level of protection!! )

I think the basic premise of my arguemnt isn't that RIAA is wrong legally. It's that they and the laws are just wrong. In 1980 it was against the law to connect a modem or a computer to the teliphone. People still did it and they risked getting caught and fined. It was a stupid law put in place by an industry not working towards it's best interests by a stupid congress who didn't understand the technology and didn't correctly interpret the publics best interest.

That's where the recording industry is today. They are using their political capital and mussle against their and the public best interest. That's my overall point. So far the courts have allowed it and congress is backing them. But that won't go on for very long because they are setting themselves up against two jugernauts. First the electronics industry which dwarfs them in power and support. Second the peoples right to reasonable make use of new and useful inovations.

[headexplode]

Uh, you do realize that, in the US, copyright was established in the Constitution?

That was way back in the days of 78's, wasn't it?

Right. Paul McCartney was just a corporate executive.

How did I know you would pick out my mistake? :laugh: I realized too late.

What I should have said is that record companies have been screwing artists since before recordings (and the written songs themselves) were regularly registered and the levels of protection were as, um, vigorous as they are today. Most artists didn't think to ensure they would be able to prove the work was their own--they didn't see that ever coming up. Their work was frequently stolen and recorded by popular musicians at the time at great profit to record companies--the original artists were rarely compensated fairly, if at all. (Though, to be fair, they probably stole those songs from someone else, too.) (The movie industry has done the same thing, most notoriously Disney, who has made billions off stories that were already in the public domain, yet will sue the **** out of anyone who dare use the image of Mickey Mouse.)

Other than a period of five or six years, when Paul McCartney was stoned out of his mind (and so were his bandmates), his musical contributions are largely forgettable. Not to mention that he has always been a fairly adept businessperson. The early Beatles' stuff was mostly feel-good pop songs.

[JMS]

Other than a period of five or six years, when Paul McCartney was stoned out of his mind (and so were his bandmates), his musical contributions are largely forgettable. Not to mention that he has always been a fairly adept businessperson. The early Beatles' stuff was mostly feel-good pop songs.

I don't believe Paul McCartney owns rights to any of the Beatles catalog. I believe Sony Records does via Michael Jackson who purchased them at auction.

Not only do recording companies take unfair advantage of artists, they also operate as a trust to the detriment of the public. When records and LP's were the standard medium record companies paid almost half of their net to production costs, yet when CD's came out drastically reducing production costs; Album prices stayed constant. Now when electronic transmission and sales of songs has come out even further reducing the price of production; Again net cost remains constant at roughly 1 dollar a song. And what's worse all of the record companys do the same thing acting in calusion.

Even the equipment to create a studio in order to cut a song has dramatically fallen in the age of the micro computer. Yet non of these cost savings are passed on to the consumer.

The over all premise behind copy right laws isn't to allow large companies to get larger. It isn't even to allow inovators to own the rights to their inovations indefinately. The over all premise is to allow a reasonable return to the inovator in order to encourage inovation for the publics benifit. The public benifits part which is always been paromount in the original law has been warped. Today these companies are claiming indefinite ownership. Elvis's catalog is more than 50 years old for gods sake. Some of the beatles catalog is almost that old. How does allowing a large corporation indifinate rights to this material work towards the public interest knowing that original copy right laws didn't even apply to music, didn't even apply to books or magazines and never etended over even 10 years where they did apply..

In the Beatles example the company which owns the catalog today has changed four or five times since the songs were orgininally written and recorded. How does Sony records owning that catalog equate to "incentive" for Paul Macartney to write more songs, if it ever did?

The law is wrong and just doesn't work as intended. Technology is just exposing the hypocracy.

[headexplode]

Nobody is forcing you to spend your money on Britney Spears/Metallica or any other crappy music.

Everything else in your post is just you trying to rationalize your decisions to share music on the internet.

Your excuses are like me going to wal-mart for 15 years, spending $14 every week, then shoplifting from them because they sold me inferior products that I didn’t have to purchase in the first place.

Record companies are not a charity. They are in the business of making money just like every other company not classified as a non-profit.

If they are underpaying artists, that’s a fight the artists need to take on with the recording industry.

I never said anyone was forcing me to do anything. What I said was that subpar music was being fed to us (over our public airwaves) and that art was being sacrificed at the expense of the bottom line. I also said that record companies are simply getting a taste of their own medicine from people who decided they didn't want to pay $18 for an album with maybe one or two good songs. What I said was I don't have any sympathy for the RIAA or its members who have made billions of dollars stealing the works of other artists, not to mention grossly underpaying most of the artists whose works they own. What I said was their claim of victimhood is absurd.

Art is not just like any commodity you find at Wal-Mart. In truth, the value of art cannot be properly quantified in purely capitalistic terms. The corruption of art at the hands of corporations, who view it (as you pointed out) only in terms of their ability to maximize profits, and with the help of willing politicians who continuously (and against the best interests of the people) expand ownership protections, will do far greater harm in the long-term than any terrorist ever could. As a musician and a lifelong lover of music, this is blasphemous. I understand there is a role that commerce can play in the recording and the dissemination of art, and I have absolutely no problem with artists being fairly compensated and protected for their contributions, and I understand that companies who invest in an artist expect some returns. The RIAA has gone far beyond this, and have used (and helped write) laws that ensure their firm grasp will not be broken and that the quality and integrity of music and other art forms will continue to decrease.

I don't have to rationalize what I do. I have always been, and always will be, on the side of the artists. It's you, I think, who must rationalize the heavy-handed and greedy actions undertaken by the RIAA and its members by hiding behind The Law, without ever questioning who wrote that Law to begin with. Copyright protections were not envisioned to merely protect the profits of businesspeople and artists, but also to encourage the dissemination of new and original ideas for the betterment of everybody.

[headexplode]

I don't believe Paul McCartney owns rights to any of the Beatles catalog. I believe Sony Records does via Michael Jackson who purchased them at auction.

I believe EMI owned the rights to Beatles' songs before Sony. I remember there being a huge royalty battle between EMI and the bandmembers. McCartney (along with other members) have been producing music for years, and certainly are well-versed in the business aspects of the recording industry. And they certainly knew (and know) what would sell and what wouldn't.

[Dictator]

I don't believe Paul McCartney owns rights to any of the Beatles catalog. I believe Sony Records does via Michael Jackson who purchased them at auction.

Not only do recording companies take unfair advantage of artists, they also operate as a trust to the detriment of the public. When records and LP's were the standard medium record companies paid almost half of their net to production costs, yet when CD's came out drastically reducing production costs; Album prices stayed constant. Now when electronic transmission and sales of songs has come out even further reducing the price of production; Again net cost remains constant at roughly 1 dollar a song. And what's worse all of the record companys do the same thing acting in calusion.

Even the equipment to create a studio in order to cut a song has dramatically fallen in the age of the micro computer. Yet non of these cost savings are passed on to the consumer.

And stealing music only works to increase prices. So, you, and others like you, are only shooting yourselfs in the foot.

Here's something you just aren't understanding. Somebody owns the music. In the end, it doesn't matter who. If you are obtaining copies of the music without paying for it, you are stealing. The RIAA is your boogyman because they have the financial ability to punish those who steal.

[ixcuincle]

the RIAA isn't against people putting mp3s on their computers. They are against people SHARING THEIR MUSIC.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/08/092357.php

The RIAA Extends Its Battle Against XM Satellite Radio

Written by Craig Lyndall

Published June 08, 2006

XM Satellite Radio is the latest target of the RIAA. They have filed suit in New York over a new radio device that XM just put out called the Inno. This is no small matter, either. The RIAA is suing for $150,000 per "violation." In this case, a violation would be considered a single song recorded onto this device off of the live XM Airwaves. While this is an outlandish number difficult to imagine, even some fraction of that amount per "violation" could send this infant radio/technology company into an unrecoverable tailspin.

What violations does the RIAA perceive XM is committing?

The two devices in question are the Inno and Helix. These two new devices released by XM are one of the most excellent examples of useful technological convergence we have seen since radios started coming with tape decks. This product takes portable satellite radio abilities and gives the capability to record live programming for playback at a later time. But that alone would just be an average example of convergence. Through the use of streaming technology and the included memory, XM has enabled "tagging" of songs so that even if you are listening to a song and it is half way over with, it can go back into the queue and record the entire thing. This takes recording to a whole new level because it takes the failure rate out of the process.

And this "tagging," or recording of songs is the problem that the RIAA has with XM. They feel as if storing a song digitally is outside the realm of fairness. Without additional planning and controls, I might agree with them. If listeners could tag songs, go home and load all their tracks onto their PCs into portable digital music formats like MP3s then it would be just like stealing the track from one of the illegal venues on the Internet. If that were the case, then I would say that the RIAA has every right to sue XM into oblivion.

That is not the case, though. XM has allowed the "tagging" of these songs for replay in their device alone. A listener is unable through any normal, reasonable methods to transfer audio from the XM device onto the PC. If that wasn't enough, they also decided to enable easy purchase of any "tagged" tracks.

For example, an XM subscriber with either the Helix or Inno XM radio can spend a day walking around with their device tagging songs that they like. Let's say they then want to have copies of ten of the songs they enjoyed so they could make a mix on their computer. They connect the XM device to the PC and it helps them purchase each one of the tracks through the 100% legal Napster download service. If anything, this seems to lessen the chance that someone would go hunting through illegal Internet channels for MP3 copies of the songs they just downloaded. By converging the recording of material off of the airwaves with an online store, XM is encouraging legal participation in the music business by its listeners.

Sure, it's possible a listener could save tracks and only listen to them on the XM device, but the right of individuals to record programming for their own personal and private use has been protected since the cassette tape recorder was introduced. It is also true a listener could use a third party recording device and record into a digital format from the headphone jack off the device, but that is a possibility with every single device with a headphone jack. On top of that, recording that occurs like that doesn't preserve all the original quality of the sound as it is being converted from digital to analog and then being converted back into digital.

Back to the lawsuit at hand. The RIAA is claiming the ability to record tracks and then have them subsequently stored on the device so that they are searchable by song, artist, and genre somehow violates the fair use of audio recorded over the air. It is certainly more convenient than to have to record a whole block of audio like in the old days with cassette tapes, but does that make this an illegal process? I don't think so. The fact the technology has moved forward and a company like XM is enabling its listeners to exercise their rights to record over-the-air programming is great. I would agree with the RIAA if the listener's abilities were unchecked and recording the songs gave you some portable digital format to use and abuse. The fact is the abilities of listeners are checked by the device.

The bottom line is this. XM has released an intentionally limiting technology which maximizes ease of use for their customers, while promoting the legal procurement of songs that are available for purchase at Napster. They have pushed their technology forward a giant step, while doing everything it could to respect the artists and their various management companies.

Do we really want to legislate to the point we are discouraging this kind of creativity and ingenuity?

This story will continue.

----------------------------

Even th ough nothing is being shared here (simply recording content off XM) RIAA-man gets upset and brings out the lawyers. Are we not permitted to record broadcasts for our own personal use anymore? I hope my constant recording of radio talk shows such as Jim Rome and North Carolina basketball play by play over the internet is not illegal. I was planning to record various forms of talk radio and store them on my future mp3 player.

[JMS]

I believe EMI owned the rights to Beatles' songs before Sony. I remember there being a huge royalty battle between EMI and the bandmembers. McCartney (along with other members) have been producing music for years, and certainly are well-versed in the business aspects of the recording industry. And they certainly knew (and know) what would sell and what wouldn't.

You probable know more about it than I do. I do know Michael Jackson owned the majority of the Beatles and Elvis catalogs at one time..

Those assets include music catalogs. Jackson owns half of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which controls 200,000 songs, including most of The Beatles and Elvis Presley's hits.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/06/09/jackson.finances/index.html

When Jacko had all his legal troubles there was talk of him selling his music catalogs, don't know what happenned on that.

As for Paul McCartney, I know Jacko out bid him at auction to obtain the rights. Paul was in several sucessful bands as well as a solo career. I believe Paul still owns most of those post Beatles efforts. Didn't make the same mistake twice.

[Larry]

Not according to RIAA. They are saying when you create the MP3 version of the music you are compressing the data stream and ultimately creating a corrupted copy of their property. They are claiming purchasing the CD does not give you this right. Again they are ahead of the law on this one and are trying to sue poor folks in order to set the precident.

Larry I posted the legal brief.... where the RIAA was equating MP3 formate with unauthorized and the fact the defendent owned the CD's RIAA claims now is irrelivent.

Page 15..

Just reading the words man.. just reading the words.

OK, I'm going to pretend, just one more time, that there's a slight chance that the reason this verbal diarrhea keeps coming out of you is because of stupidity never seen before in the history of Tailgate, rather that the deliberate lies of a confessed multiple felon trying to somehow claim morality.

Look real close, and see if just maybe you can spot the difference between these two sentences:

And now their saying you can't create MP3's even if you own the CD's.

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.

Do you think you can do that? It's real tricky.

Fact is the supreme court has fifty years of precident saying it's against the law to outlaw equipment used to listen to broadcasts or recordings. It has to do with freedom of assemble and freedom of speach.

Also utter BS. (Have you considered Kaopectate?)

Sony v. Betamax ruled that Sony couldn't ban a device (the VCR) simply because the device might be used to break the law. The decision ruled that

1. Copying of copyrighted material was illegal
   
2. Recording broadcast material for the sole purpose of watching it at a different time was not.
   

And they ruled that the evidence suggested that most VCRs were used for purpose #2, rather than purpose #1.

The only Constitutional Rights they ruled on were those of the copyright owners.

[JMS]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/08/092357.php

The RIAA Extends Its Battle Against XM Satellite Radio

Written by Craig Lyndall

Published June 08, 2006

That's exactly right. RIAA doesn't understand the technology they are litigating against, and hasn't thought out where their legal net is leading us. They are headed to a direct confrontation with the electronics industry, which is a battle they will never win.

[Larry]

People have gotten lawyers and gone against the record companies. They've lost more often than not. Why? Because the RIAA has the law on their side.

Actually, I seem to remember reading that the recent Grandmother is the first time ever that an RIAA case has gone all the way to a verdict. (And therefore, it's the only one that exists, as far as a legal precedent.)

Grandma was represented by a lot of really expensive lawyers, funded by a lot of lobbying groups. (Specifically because both sides knew that this case would be the precedent.)

Grandma got hosed. Guilty on all counts. Fine, IIR, of $120,000 per count.

[stevenaa]

WAAAAAAAA. Artists are getting screwed, even though they signed contracts. WAAAAAAA. The quality of music sucks, we're getting screwed. Solution: Steal music and justify it because of points 1 and 2. Music is copyrighted. Music is owned. Making copies of someone elses music is ILLEGAL. Pretty simple concept, really. If you don't want to spend money on an album for 1 or 2 songs, purchase the songs LEGALLY from any number of online sites that LEGALLY sell music by albums and individual songs.

Moral reletivism at it's finest.

[headexplode]

WAAAAAAAA. Artists are getting screwed, even though they signed contracts. WAAAAAAA. The quality of music sucks, we're getting screwed. Solution: Steal music and justify it because of points 1 and 2. Music is copyrighted. Music is owned. Making copies of someone elses music is ILLEGAL. Pretty simple concept, really. If you don't want to spend money on an album for 1 or 2 songs, purchase the songs LEGALLY from any number of online sites that LEGALLY sell music by albums and individual songs.

Moral reletivism at it's finest.

Moral certainty at its most obnoxious.

You confuse legality with morality.

[Fergasun]

Larry,

I'm guessing you're talking about the jury case? Jamie Thomas? Everyone pretty much agrees she didn't have a case, and she was just trying to lie and hide that she was sharing music.

In anycase, $120k per song seems way out of line. If I was on that jury I would've lobbied hard for a guilty conviction with a $1 per song fine.

The problem with the RIAA is supply and demand. Anyone under 30 probably wonders, "Why should I buy music when I can download it for free?" The supply of free music is so easy to get ahold of that pirating isn't given much of a second thought. What's strange to me is that my own ISP (which is run by a big media company) actually hosts all of the music. Why would they do that?

I think a fair protest of copyright vs. the MPAA/RIAA would be to download songs/movies that are > 25 years old. My biggest problem with copyright law is the length due to all the extensions in order to help Mickey Mouse not drop into public domain.

[Larry]

United States Constitution... Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So Larry a few thoughts. First off RIAA isn't an Author, inventor or Artist. It's a company which doesn't represent any of those people.

Correct. Neither they, nor the record companies they represent, are the authors.

They're the people who the authors sold the rights to.

Recently, at halftime at the Super Bowl, Paul McCartney performed several songs which Paul McCartney had written.

And every time he did, he paid a fee to Michael Jackson.

Because when Paul McCartney wrote those songs, he sold them. (To Apple Music? I forget the company.) And then, years later, Michael Jackson bought those songs from that company.

Don't like record companies? Don't sell them your songs.

Second off "limited times" has expanded significantly today over and above what the founding fathers ever considered. Copy right laws today do not "promote progress", they lock up rights rather in order to secure profits.

The folks profiting aren't the inovators, and the system doesn't work for the peoples advantage.

Agreed. (See how different a response you get, when you actually say something that's true?)

When Paul McCartney sold those songs, the copyright he sold was good for 17 years.

After the company paid Paul for the songs, then they got the law changed to make them last longer. (It's also pretty likely that when Paul and The Beatles sold those songs, the contract didn't mention anything about royalties from CDs. Might even not have mentioned tapes, in those days.

OTOH, Paul sold all rights to market those songs, in any way that the professional marketing company could think of.

But, (the way I saw it put recently made a lot of sense to me), then they (retroactively) extended the copyrights on all of the Beatles' songs, they did absolutely nothing to stimulate innovation.

The Beatles are not going to be stimulated to create any new songs now that the law's been changed. Ian Flemming will not create any more James Bond stories. Neither Humphrey Bogart nor Alfred Hitch**** are going to make more movies.

While it might be claimed that extending copyrights might stimulate innovation, it's guaranteed that doing so retroactively will not.

A lot of decisions are getting made that will affect the "balance of power" between consumers, the rights holders, and the nation as a whole. And right now, the guys with the biggest lobbyists, the folks who are dominating the decisions, are the rights holders.

OTOH, the excuse that's being used to justify these unprecedented extensions of power in the hands of few, are people like you. Thieves.

Just like people like Pat Robertson, when they're pushing for legislation to pan porn, will always claim that they're "protecting children", when the recording industry wants to get a law passed that makes it illegal for you to listen to music in your house and in your car unless you pay for it twice, they're going to say they need it "to prevent piracy".

A lot of bad decisions are being made in Congress. And the public is getting shafted. But the solution isn't "let's everybody get out there and steal a lot (and claim that we're entitled)."

[Larry]

Moral certainty at its most obnoxious.

You confuse legality with morality.

Hint: Stealing is neither.

[Fergasun]

A lot of bad decisions are being made in Congress. And the public is getting shafted. But the solution isn't "let's everybody get out there and steal a lot (and claim that we're entitled)."

If everyone steals, they can't possibly think it's a good use of resources to put everyone in jail. Think of it like speeding on the highway (not sure if that analogy has been used).

My problem with copyright is the extension due to the Mickey Mouse rule or whatever. I think this might change when younger folks get more power...

[JMS]

OK, I'm going to pretend, just one more time, that there's a slight chance that the reason this verbal diarrhea keeps coming out of you is because of stupidity never seen before in the history of Tailgate,

Diarrhea is a dirty word... I fail to understand how the viscosity of my excreations lend creadence to your argument or civility to our discussions. Strike that, they don't in either case.

rather that the deliberate lies of a confessed multiple felon trying to somehow claim morality.

How exactly am I a "confessed multiple felon"? I guess you don't read nearly as carefully you believe. I've not confessed to anything. Nor am I in violation of any law real or imaginary that I am aware of.

Look real close, and see if just maybe you can spot the difference between these two sentences:

Larry Section 3-C of the legal brief specifically deals with whether they guy had an "authorized" copy of the works. And specifically claims the act of converting the work to an MP3 formate unauthorizes the copy whether the guy owns the CD copy or not.

Again top of page 15....

C. Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings on his computer and actually disseminated such unauthorized copies over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant’s computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.) 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.

And Again I'm not alone in interpretting this passage as stateing RIAA is attempting to role back consumer rights and attack any MP3 conversion of a legally purchased CD...

RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/11/0436215

Also utter BS. (Have you considered Kaopectate?)

Again obsesed with my excretions. It's very unseemly.

Fact is the supreme court has as I stated more than 50 years of precident saying it's against the law to outlaw equipment used to listen to broadcasts or recordings. Your narrow listing of a single case doesn't reflect case law on the issue.

The reason why it's against the law to outlaw any device which recieves electronic transmissions is tied to freedom of speach and freedom of assemply rights in the constitition as I've already stated.

Time for you to make more potty jokes.

[JMS]

And stealing music only works to increase prices. So, you, and others like you, are only shooting yourselfs in the foot.

Here's something you just aren't understanding. Somebody owns the music. In the end, it doesn't matter who. If you are obtaining copies of the music without paying for it, you are stealing. The RIAA is your boogyman because they have the financial ability to punish those who steal.

Steal? They're prosecuting folks who buy their music.

Also, If you purchaise an electronic itunes copy of a song you are limited to only a few devices you can transfer that song too. If you buy a CD historically you could copy it to any device you wished. Hell if you own a CD or a Tape you can transport that to any device you wish! What is happenning here is a rolling back of consumer rights; not a enforcement of the status quoe you claim.

Fact is the RIAA is a preditory organization trying to expand their rights to the detriment fo the free market...

Oh and don't assert I am doing anything illegal because you just make yourself and your argument look needlessly stupid. You don't know me, nor have I "confessed" or said I practice on either side of this issue. My interests come from a historical appreciation of consumer rights, copy right law and being alarmed at the deterioration of the former in favor of the latter by corporate interests across the economy; not from being an audio phyle.

[JMS]

Actually, I seem to remember reading that the recent Grandmother is the first time ever that an RIAA case has gone all the way to a verdict. (And therefore, it's the only one that exists, as far as a legal precedent.)

Grandma was represented by a lot of really expensive lawyers, funded by a lot of lobbying groups. (Specifically because both sides knew that this case would be the precedent.)

Grandma got hosed. Guilty on all counts. Fine, IIR, of $120,000 per count.

So they sued two grandmothers. RIAA is 1-1 vs indigent Grandmothers...

Way to go.

[Larry]

So they sued two grandmothers. RIAA is 1-1 vs indigent Grandmothers...

Way to go.

Nope. They're 1-0.

Hint: The only precedent that counts, in court, is completed cases. And there's only been one.

"RIAA drops case" doesn't prove anything. (As has been pointed out, did they drop the case because the defendant wasn't breaking the law? Or because their investigator didn't have the right paperwork?)

"Defendant settles out of court, pays fine" doesn't count, either. (Did he settle because he was guilty? Or because he didn't want to pay legal bills?)