As I wonder why you are so eager to descend to the ad hominem attack. [sigh] On another list I got a bunch of "Why are you supporting Saddam Hussein?" questions for pointing out that there was little evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11, so I shouldn't be surprised to encounter that kind of thing here. 

I do consider it to be a bit sensational. I'll tell you why.

First it  says:

"Current litigation against Jeffrey Howell of Arizona shows that while the industry's gone after him for file-sharing, not ripping MP3s ..."

Which is the only point I have ever tried to make.

it goes on to say "... it's also taking exception to recordings on his computer that he copied from CDs he purchased, with the outlook that Howell is also liable for the "unauthorized copies" he made and placed on his PC." Which contradicts the first half of the sentence and is totally unsupported. This is not hard to understand. Making an unauthorized copy is not a violation of copyright. I am completely within my rights to duplicate my Lord of the Rings DVDs even though no one authorized me to do it. Distributing a copyrighted work is also not, by itself, a violation of copyright. I donate books to the Library all the time and have even been know to give away CDs. This is perfectly legal.

But first the Washington Post and now the Motley Fool posting try to portray the RIAA as having argued in the Howell case that simply making  a copy is a violation of copyright. The only evidence that the Motley Fool presents is that some lawyer for a different record company in another case made an asinine statement and that the RIAA is generally an evil organization. It's the old Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on his own people therefore he must have been behind 9/11 argument again.

--

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.

-Paul Valery, poet and philosopher (1871-1945)