What the RIAA really said.

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, der.hans 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 :(.

It's doing that for me now as well. It wasn't this morning.
>
>
> "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?

Methinks you are being a bit disingenuous.


--
Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!