Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
The WaPo screwed up the article. The RIAA is suing in that particular case because he shared those files online, not just because he made the copies.
|
Yes, that is correct, he is alleged to have been sharing these files...but that's not the "problem".
The RIAA (I swear the "I" is for imbeciles sometimes) is out of their minds if they think they are going to "win" by getting a slam dunk on vaporizing fair use (Orin Hatch already told them once to stick it on this regard).
Because I am used to their...strange...logic, i totally understand their angle: if it can be made illegal to make a digicopy, then 1. you dry up the supply that feeds the sharing and 2. the wet dream of forcing the CE industry to protect the AAs and Friends business models at the expensive of their own AND not have to pay for it is a slam dunk, since none of their crap has ever flown before (such as DIVX, Napster: Reanimated, MusicNet 1.0, Sony's Serial Copy Management System, etc)
It's just not going to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
But on the other hand, the RIAA screwed up royally. Everyone is correctly interpreting the meaning of that legal brief. It has grown from a PR fiasco to a PR Charlie Foxtrot.
|
Like I said...I do hope they win. This move has like a 2% sympathy rating, if that.