Comments on: Unbelievably standing up for the RIAA (this one time) http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/2007/12/unbelievably-standing-up-for-the-riaa-this-one-time/ Unclarifying the issues since 2000 Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:49:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: laurence http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/2007/12/unbelievably-standing-up-for-the-riaa-this-one-time/comment-page-1/#comment-392 laurence Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:36:55 +0000 http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/?p=681#comment-392 I like what you have to say and would like to use it in a piece on the reaction to the original news. I will of course include a link back. I hope that is OK Laurence Eastham I like what you have to say and would like to use it in a piece on the reaction to the original news. I will of course include a link back.
I hope that is OK
Laurence Eastham

]]> By: Phelps http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/2007/12/unbelievably-standing-up-for-the-riaa-this-one-time/comment-page-1/#comment-391 Phelps Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:04:09 +0000 http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/?p=681#comment-391 Disclosures -- IANAL, this is not a legal opinion. On the other hand, I work in litigation and see a lot of argument, especially in IP litigation, so I think I know how to parse it. You can't read the RIAA's argument the way you want to. A copy is either authorized or it is not -- you can't buy a book that is an authorized copy, until you put it on a library shelf. The RIAA is indeed arguing that the copies are unauthorized. The circumstances are simply them vilifying the alleged unauthorized copies. Creating unauthorized copies and facilitating unauthorized copies are two different torts, two different charges. It is the difference between murder and accessory. The RIAA is alleging that he both facilitated <i>and</i> made unauthorized copies (by virtue of ripping the CDs.) It is the difference between (b) and (c) in 17 Sec 506 (A)(1): <blockquote>(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.</blockquote> Disclosures — IANAL, this is not a legal opinion. On the other hand, I work in litigation and see a lot of argument, especially in IP litigation, so I think I know how to parse it.
You can’t read the RIAA’s argument the way you want to. A copy is either authorized or it is not — you can’t buy a book that is an authorized copy, until you put it on a library shelf. The RIAA is indeed arguing that the copies are unauthorized. The circumstances are simply them vilifying the alleged unauthorized copies.
Creating unauthorized copies and facilitating unauthorized copies are two different torts, two different charges. It is the difference between murder and accessory. The RIAA is alleging that he both facilitated and made unauthorized copies (by virtue of ripping the CDs.) It is the difference between (b) and (c) in 17 Sec 506 (A)(1):

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

]]> By: Lee Dale http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/2007/12/unbelievably-standing-up-for-the-riaa-this-one-time/comment-page-1/#comment-390 Lee Dale Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:01:26 +0000 http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/?p=681#comment-390 This is all quite unfortunate. I wrote a rant about this article a couple of days ago trusting that the Washington Post, Marc Fisher, and their fact checking sleuths were correctly representing the situation. There's still no doubt the RIAA is a shoddy organization set up by desperate businesses that seem to have no trouble treating their customers like criminals, but I also agree that that's no justification for hack journalism. In my defense, my rant was on a Facebook post (I ain't no professional) but now I know I can't go trusting anything I read without doing a little digging of my own. Same old story. Peace. Lee This is all quite unfortunate.
I wrote a rant about this article a couple of days ago trusting that the Washington Post, Marc Fisher, and their fact checking sleuths were correctly representing the situation.
There’s still no doubt the RIAA is a shoddy organization set up by desperate businesses that seem to have no trouble treating their customers like criminals, but I also agree that that’s no justification for hack journalism.
In my defense, my rant was on a Facebook post (I ain’t no professional) but now I know I can’t go trusting anything I read without doing a little digging of my own. Same old story.
Peace.
Lee

]]>