The RIAA are dirty snakes

In a case against an unrepresented defendant the RIAA has included a statement into the brief for summary judgment

Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

While some of the argument relates to the defendant putting the mp3 files into his Kazaa shared folder, the wording clearly tries to get case precedent for two items

  • That the the use of mp3 encoding implies that infringement is taking place
  • That the copying of CD tracks into mp3 on your computer is an unauthorised use of copyrighted product.

I have said previously that the end game for the recording industry is to charge for every time you listen to a song, essentially making you subscribe to music rather than to own it.  The concept of fair use means nothing to them but lost revenue.

Copyright was not intended for this, it was meant to stop people playing your music and claiming it was your own.  We have already extended this to cover exploitation of the work and into what you can do with music that you have purchased.  And how this industry have managed to get so much influence on what so many governments legislate completely boggles my mind.

Commentary on /. and BoingBoing

One thought on “The RIAA are dirty snakes

  1. I think you make valid points and I still don’t get the concept of paying DVD prices for downloading an inferior quality product.

    I wouldn’t mind the charges so much if it were more realistic. Say I could download or rent a song of video for less than a buck. I have it for a week or whatever and then it’s gone. But half the things on ITunes or anywhere else can’t be rented, so you have to pay like 14 or 15 bucks for a movie. I’m sorry but I might as well just go buy the DVD at that point.

    The funniest thing to me was a few years back when one of my favorite bands as a child, Metallica, went after napster and all those downloaders with some thousand pages list of people who ‘stole’ their music. Talk about a band who forgot where they came from and forgot half their fans were never mainstream music listeners back in the 1980’s. And then a few years later they adopted the ‘online’ music presence and all this crap.. Sorry but I lost all my respect for them after that moment. It’s one thing to complain, it’s another to go after your own fans cause your greedy.

    And while the record labels and corporations are a-holes, give me a break in the claims that many of these muscians aren’t making money. Yeah the independents and the unknowns might not be, but they usually aren’t the ones complaining… When you own a few million dollar mansions and start complaining about lost revenue, you become just as bad as the record labels and look like nothing more than a greedy liar.

    But then again, the hollywood writers are on strike and while they have some valid points, some of their demands seem to be a bit unrealistic. Most things online aren’t exactly making a ton of money besides a few sites and people, at least enough money to demand royalties from. It’s great to fight for a cause, but if the cause makes you look just as greedy as the corporations, what does that accomplish?

    I think it’s not just the corporations or groups that are the problem. There are a ton of people who have become nothing but greedy. Just look at one of your last topics, bloggers who have fake paid for link placements and how they got pissed when google cost them money.

Comments are closed.