And you believe that this doom's day scenario is probable? Ken
-----Original Message----- From: Thor Teague [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 October 2007 14:48 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: (313) New edict from RIAA What makes it not reasonable is that the RIAA has never really been forthcoming that their product is a license, and you are paying for rights. The physical merchandise is almost an aside. Following this train of thought, further pursuit of [likely outlandish] lawsuits for, for instance, recording something off the radio or TV, selling secondhand DVD's & CD's, trading mixes, and so on, also becomes reasonable. You could even take it into the realm of home videos, photography, drawings and paintings, pursuing lawsuits that an unlicensed representation of copyrighted material (such as product labels, home movies with the TV or radio running, signage, etc.) constitutes copyright infringement. I feel that if the RIAA were more forthcoming about their intentions and that these scenarios suddenly become both reasonable and plausible when following the train of thought upon which they model their business, and well you think the consumers are rebelling now... I feel pretty confident in saying the copyright-mongers are headed down a slippery slope, and should have stuck to pursuing the litigation that IS justified--namely the unauthorized duplication and sale of other people's work. They may realize this and correct their behavior, or they may make themselves irrelevant and drop dead. (Financially speaking.) That's what copyright law is for. Not for suing 12 year olds and single mothers for twenty times their net worth because they downloaded a god damn brittany spears song. Yeah, sorry bro. It's not reasonable. On 10/31/07, Odeluga, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems to be quite reasonable to me. > > Widespread use without permission, doesn't establish a precedent - > unless a court decides this - one hasn't yet. On the other hand, > 'routinely granted' is the key phrase innit? > > Then to quote from the link: > > 'If I understand what the RIAA is saying, "perfectly lawful" means > "lawful until we change our mind." ' > > Well, I think you'd have to x Bush by about 29.7 before you reached > the political climate in which some authorities thought they could > sucessfully go after people ripping CDs for their own use. > > It's possible, but unlikely I feel. > > Ken
