Intensely compressed music is bad, m'kay?

Don't get me started.

The RIAA's new position is that everyone who has ripped legally purchased CDs to their computer is stealing: [link]

Next: everyone who listens to legally purchased music is violating someone's copyright.

The RIAA's new position is that everyone who has ripped legally purchased CDs to their computer is stealing:

Actually, that's been their position for a while. They just happened to mention it in their court document thingie (where they hadn't before).

The main issue in this case is still that the guy "made the files available" on a shared folder.

The RIAA's new position is that everyone who has ripped legally purchased CDs to their computer is stealing

Whether or not it's a new position, it's one that case law will laugh out of the room. This kind of thing got resolved way back when people were taping off of TV onto VHS, and I'm sure was also resolved the first time blank audio tapes were sold directly to consumers. I think this RIAA position is the legal equivalent of shit-piling your opponent in hopes of scaring him away.

Yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of fair use. [link]

Yeah. I used to tape off radio, you know. Endlessly. For hours and hours. And I named the tapes after boys. Boys who would have liked the music on the tapes. And then I made lists of what was on the tapes for each boy. And then I made subject matter mix tapes off the original radio tapes and named them after boys I really really liked.

...

It's possible that this is exactly the sort of behavior the RIAA is trying to curb.

The main issue in this case is still that the guy "made the files available" on a shared folder.

The Howell case? Where does it say he did that?

...the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

In other words, it is illegal to make a copy of a legally purchased CD to listen to in your legally purchased car's legally purchased CD player.

I wonder how the RIAA would react if a few million CD purchasers filed a class action lawsuit demanding the record companies freely replaced all the legally purchased CDs that became unplayable because of the normal wear and tear of listening to them in car stereos? Alternatively, the class action could be filed to force the record companies to use unscratchable compact discs.

The Howell case? Where does it say he did that?

From this Slashdot story: [link]

The original article implied that the Association's suit stemmed from the music ripping. As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing files in a shared directory.

Which references this engadget story: [link]

Although there it says:

Jeffery isn't actually being sued for ripping CDs, like the Washington Post and several other sources have reported, but for plain old illegal downloading.

So is "illegal downloading" the same as "placing files in a shared directory"? Doesn't seem so to me, but in that case I don't know where the Slashdot poster got the "shared directory" thing from....

eta: I seem to recall reading the "shared directory" thing before, but I don't remember where....

Thanks tommyrot.

This story is still not be (sic) reported correctly. The court briefing states that copying a CD to a computer in MP3 format and putting it in their shared KAZA folder is what made the copies illegal.

Now, if this is the case, then Howell's a double moron. First for challenging the case, and second for still using KAZA.

The MPAA considers uploading (or putting stuff in a shared folder in a file-sharing program) to be worse than downloading, right? Or when you download a file with a file-sharing program, is the file generally left in the shared folder, available for others to download? (In which case the distinction might not mean much.)