Reply With Quote
btw i'm part black/mexican/chinese/japanese/white so I can make all these comments without being racist.
You guys are getting this analogy stuff all wrong. First you use black people as an example of a "worker" instead of Mexicans. Now this.
Chinese people don't take pictures, Japanese people do. But they're all the same so I get why you'd make that mistake.
btw i'm part black/mexican/chinese/japanese/white so I can make all these comments without being racist.
Alright once and for all.
I buy a twelve pack of bottled water the package clearly states its not to be broken up and redisributed as individual bottles. I then drink half a bottle and then put half in the freezer. I eat the ice piss in a water filter and then boil my urine. I then move the purified waste in the bottle. Then drink it again while sharing it with a friend. I'm stealing water?
yes
no
how did you eat the ice out of a water bottle?
nahh, you're just being frugal
how long could you drink your own urine to survive?
A cloned ice pick from the Sharper Image.
What if you take a shower, save the water. Then lend it to a friend to shower, are you stealing water?
thievery
No it means you're Mexican, we've been through this already.
Damn thats what I figured
Too bad none of this is true.
Washington Post Flubs Story On RIAA -- RIAA Still Not Going After Personal Copies (Yet)
from the who-needs-to-read-the-details? dept
Back at the beginning of December, we helped debunk a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer. That story was misleading, at best. While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were not going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a shared Kazaa folder. Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs. Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs. That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry question the Washington Post on this as well. It looks as though the Post's source for the story is the same as the earlier story: lawyer Ray Beckerman. Beckerman has done (and continues to do) a fantastic job fighting the RIAA against its bogus lawsuits. However, he still has failed to explain how the RIAA's filing actually says what he claims it says. While he suggested I don't understand because I am not familiar enough with the minutia of copyright law, I don't see how he can say the same for Patry, who literally wrote a nearly 6,000 page book on copyright. Of course, now that the Washington Post has republished this already debunked story, many other publications are spreading it. I emailed the Washington Post writer asking for clarification on Monday, but have not yet heard back.
Furthermore, there is one other point that is worth highlighting. It was noted in the comments to our original post. The filing points out that when Howell ripped his CDs and put them into a shared folder, those files were no longer "authorized." It's important to note that there's a difference between unauthorized and illegal. Beckerman seems to be saying that by saying "unauthorized" the RIAA means illegal -- but that need not be the case. It's perfectly legal to rip your CDs, even if it's not authorized. It's well established that ripping a CD for personal backup purposes is perfectly legal, even if it's not authorized. What the RIAA appears to be saying is that by putting those backup files into a shared folder, the rips no longer were made for personal use, thus pushing them over the line to illegal. Yes, the RIAA is still pushing its luck in its description, but as was clearly established back at the beginning of December, it is not (yet) claiming that Howell broke the law simply by ripping his CDs -- and it's too bad that the Washington Post has repeated it in a way that caused a bunch of other sites to suddenly claim that it was true.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml
None of it matters now. The RIAA and big four labels are done. This is the dying breath of a once mighty empire. The last cash grab before it goes belly up.
Apple is currently in talks to start their own label which will destroy any chance the RIAA has to survive. Apple already has a digital distribution model.
Years of going after their own customers, more and more people will look to cir vent the system whether legally or otherwise.
This summarizes everything perfectly. The RIAA is generating so much bad will, that when somebody finally is smart enough to come up with the new business model, the RIAA will be shut out.The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."
BacktoBasics is to analogies as Britney Spears is to court dates.
Are you calling me a dirty ?
I think he is calling you a dumb dirty !! I wouldn't take that if I were you !!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions