What the RIAA really said.

[der.hans]

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 :(.

"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.

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

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
#  https://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.CiscoLearning.org/
#  Freedom isn't everything, but without freedom you have nothing. - der.hans