Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Technomage-hawke]

On Friday 04 January 2008 08:14, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
> There are also two iPods in my family with songs ripped from CDs.
> That's why I feel foolish that I initially believed the Washington
> Post story. As the Motley Fool article points out, The RIAA would  be
> adopting a position which would force Apple and Microsoft to supply
> lawyers for the other side. The RIAA is evil but they're not quite
> that stupid.
There are days one has to wonder, given that greed can cause people 
(especially lawyers and CEO's) to do incredibly stupid things (anyone 
remember Enron?).

>
> I'm perfectly confident that the RIAA will leave me alone because they
> would be utterly defeated it they tried to sue me for "stealing" music
> within my own household.
>
> But hey, turn me in if you want to. Collect a reward if you can. I
> wish you well.
I have to ask this.... why are you deliberately trying to bait someone 
(anyone)?. I know it would be rather stupid of anyone on this list (or off it 
for that matter) to go and file a report. their name would get mentioned in 
court records, leaving them open for a countersuit (based on malicious or 
defamatory prosecution). It also appears to be rather adversarial in the 
extreme.

now, on to the real point here.
it seems the RIAA 9and others) are going much the same way that Sony did with 
the betamax scandle of the late 1970's (or how about the 1948 supreme court 
decision that labeled a major production firm as a "cartel" and effectively 
criminalized the absolute control of a medium from production to public 
display (the paramount decision)), the MPAA/RIAA are doing something similar 
here by telling us that not only can we only listen to their works on the 
media provided, but they we may not shift its format or have cause to copy it 
from its original media (its like buying any old garden variety tool and 
being told you can't use it as a hammer by force of law). It a major way, 
this is a sign of a declining (or malfunctioning) business model.

lastly, has anyone ever noticed that these creeps only go after those at the 
end of the chain (the little old ladies or children or disabled adults)?. 
they don't go after the source of the major violations for one very good 
reason: those folks tend to shoot back (either with lawyers or bullets).

in any case, the ridiculousness of it all hasn't sunk in yet with the 
politicians (and probably won't until a class action gets started).