What the RIAA really said.

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 1/1/08, der.hans <PLUGd at lufthans.com> wrote:
> Am 01. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so:
>
> > I received this link from another list. It does clarify things.
> > <http://www.cio-today.com/news/RIAA-Not-Targeting-CD-Ripping-After-All/story.xhtml?story_id=13300C81I5JE>
>
> Bah, the site requires allowing cookies to get past the ad :(.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

>
> "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."
>
> Does that mean sharing flac or wav would be OK?
>
> To me the sentence does make it seem like moving to "the compressed
> .MP3" is what makes it "no longer the authorized copies distributed by
> Plaintiffs", especially after several sentences making the case that the
> defendents are the ones who converted the songs to mp3. If being in a
> compressed format is not part of the cause, then it doesn't belong in
> the sentence. It especially doesn't belong in a legal, causality-based
> document.

  This tends to be the general motif among technical discussions.  The
tech-savvy people tend to be appalled at the injunctions that the
music industry is imposing, primarily because it would be virtually
impossible to normalize the techology that is instrumental to the said
infringement.  Every time the music industry thinks they have a clamp
on the problem, someone invents some new technology.

>
> What if the songs were merely linked into the shared folder?

  Rhetorical question?  I tend to think the battle will evolve into
the music interests trying to normalize file sharing technology in
some way.  Of course the Linux world will pose a major obstacle to
this strategy as it is effectively impossible to impose technological
constraints on it at the PC level.  The RIAA et al. will eventually
run out of steam.

  -jmz