RIAA Not Suing Over CD Ripping, Still Calling Rips 'Unauthorized'

An Engadget article notes that the Washington Post RIAA article we discussed earlier today may have been poorly phrased. 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. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies' ... "something it's been doing quietly for a while, but now it looks like the gloves are off. While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here."

Re:A sad sign of the times...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we required to ask for authorization from someone to do everything now?

No. That comes later.

No, the cat doesn't "got my tongue".

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> As it actually stands the defendant isn't being sued over CD ripping, but for placing
> files in a shared directory. Engadget notes that the difference here is that the RIAA
> is deliberately describing ripped MP3 backups as 'unauthorized copies'

Apparently Engadget is confused as to what a "backup" is for and what a "shared directory" is for.

May I quote from a Speedy Gonzolez cartoon, where the fat oaf cat is looking for something to put out his friend, on fire. He grabs a bucket:

"P - E - T - R - O - L. Huh. That's a funny way to spell 'water'."

"S - H - A - R - E - D. Huh. That's a funny way to spell 'backup'."

I now humbly await my downmod. Please read my .sig before you do. (someone puts a blindfold on me) "Freedom and logic" (bang!)