Comments on: RIAA Says Copying Music to Computer for Personal Use OK, Washington Post and Blogs Have it Wrong http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/ Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:17:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Russell http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/#comment-287791 Russell Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:39:08 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong#comment-287791 Anne, you can "rah-rah" for the RIAA all you want but I would rather listen to Mr. Fisher's exaggerations and misquotes and not to the RIAA's lies and innuendo. They and the music industry moguls they represent are crooks and idiots and need to be shown as such with all the same medicine that they are pushing down our throats. Hoorah to Mr. Fisher! Make the cowards come out from the bushes and defend themselves! Anne, you can “rah-rah” for the RIAA all you want but I would rather listen to Mr. Fisher’s exaggerations and misquotes and not to the RIAA’s lies and innuendo. They and the music industry moguls they represent are crooks and idiots and need to be shown as such with all the same medicine that they are pushing down our throats. Hoorah to Mr. Fisher! Make the cowards come out from the bushes and defend themselves!

]]> By: Donald http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/#comment-287559 Donald Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:05:16 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong#comment-287559 I think the RIAA is simply making themselves unloved in all areas, since they represent people who have much (the recording industry) against people who have little (college students, teenagers). This is a corporation having the same rights as a human being. Who gets the money they steal from college students and teens when they win in a court that is stacked against them? The artist who wrote the song, the label that produced it? I doubt it. I don't think it is about the artists at all, but about the strangle hold the RIAA has over the songs out there, and even <strong>the songs on the CD's in someone's home!</strong> This is once again a situation where the corporation has rights above those of a citizen; that they can make a specious and spurious request for information that ordinarily would be sacrosanct, the relation between an ISP and the customer being one of good faith. Plus, the release of such information should really be undertaken by a law enforcement official, viz the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Here it is<strong> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."</strong> If you think I have a problem with corporations, you are correct; they have too many rights, and those rights are the rights given by the Almighty Dollar, not, as the document says, <strong>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"</strong> Somehow, I don't think the RIAA represents all of us. There are so many other ways of making money than robbing the poorest and weakest amongst us. Rev. A. Netherton I think the RIAA is simply making themselves unloved in all areas, since they represent people who have much (the recording industry) against people who have little (college students, teenagers). This is a corporation having the same rights as a human being.
Who gets the money they steal from college students and teens when they win in a court that is stacked against them? The artist who wrote the song, the label that produced it? I doubt it. I don’t think it is about the artists at all, but about the strangle hold the RIAA has over the songs out there, and even the songs on the CD’s in someone’s home!
This is once again a situation where the corporation has rights above those of a citizen; that they can make a specious and spurious request for information that ordinarily would be sacrosanct, the relation between an ISP and the customer being one of good faith. Plus, the release of such information should really be undertaken by a law enforcement official, viz the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Here it is ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
If you think I have a problem with corporations, you are correct; they have too many rights, and those rights are the rights given by the Almighty Dollar, not, as the document says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Somehow, I don’t think the RIAA represents all of us.
There are so many other ways of making money than robbing the poorest and weakest amongst us.
Rev. A. Netherton

]]> By: Ted Bruner http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/#comment-287490 Ted Bruner Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:44:04 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong#comment-287490 I think the furor is still justified, ... at least emotionally, on one side - if not both. I was alarmed and unhappy with the first report, which you claim was falsified; but I am even more disgruntled that they got belligerent over the placement of "ripped" files in a "Shared Folder". That's more of a threat, more - because it specifies a term which is in common knowledge and usage. This is pointedly alarming because entire walls of libraries (law libraries, especially) are filled with Volumes of Books entitled "Words And Phrases". Terms are codified and catagorized for later litigous use. Specification of "Shared" is firing a "Bow Shot" at everyone. Sure, the later distinction of "Kazza Shared Folder" was made, but I guarantee you that will never find its way into "Words And Phrases", but "Shared" will. An earlier comment has been posted in response to this term and its potential use against the public. Yes, there are several people who rip a CD on one machine - place the folders in "Shared" and then pick them up on the computer which is connected to the sound system(s) in the building. Sorry, but if you don't like the reporter's "take" of the story, you should be more incensed at the use of specification in the real thing. As an earlier poster reminded us: the choice of the "mouthpiece" for the RIAA to say they may not "go after" people to do such-and-such; when combined with the specification of "Shared" in the transcript, offers me no comfort. I appreciate your attempt to clear the waters re: the reporter/Washington Post article, but the Washington Post is not the one invading people's homes, schools, and lives - is it??? We need to know our enemy more than worry about a columnist and his bias. I think the furor is still justified, … at least emotionally, on one side - if not both.

I was alarmed and unhappy with the first report, which you claim was falsified; but I am even more disgruntled that they got belligerent over the placement of “ripped” files in a “Shared Folder”. That’s more of a threat, more - because it specifies a term which is in common knowledge and usage. This is pointedly alarming because entire walls of libraries (law libraries, especially) are filled with Volumes of Books entitled “Words And Phrases”. Terms are codified and catagorized for later litigous use.

Specification of “Shared” is firing a “Bow Shot” at everyone. Sure, the later distinction of “Kazza Shared Folder” was made, but I guarantee you that will never find its way into “Words And Phrases”, but “Shared” will.

An earlier comment has been posted in response to this term and its potential use against the public.

Yes, there are several people who rip a CD on one machine - place the folders in “Shared” and then pick them up on the computer which is connected to the sound system(s) in the building.

Sorry, but if you don’t like the reporter’s “take” of the story, you should be more incensed at the use of specification in the real thing.

As an earlier poster reminded us: the choice of the “mouthpiece” for the RIAA to say they may not “go after” people to do such-and-such; when combined with the specification of “Shared” in the transcript, offers me no comfort.

I appreciate your attempt to clear the waters re: the reporter/Washington Post article, but the Washington Post is not the one invading people’s homes, schools, and lives - is it???

We need to know our enemy more than worry about a columnist and his bias.

]]> By: Timmer http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/#comment-287436 Timmer Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:04:54 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong#comment-287436 The implication here is that putting the files in *any* shared folder would be illegal (at least to the RIAA), ignoring the fact that, under an OS where there are frequently separate user accounts even on the same system, a "shared" folder may be necessary for his wife to open them. Furthermore, Sherman saying that the RIAA is "not interested in going after people for who copy music to their computer (or their music player) for personal use" is not the same as saying the RIAA considers it legal. The implication here is that putting the files in *any* shared folder would be illegal (at least to the RIAA), ignoring the fact that, under an OS where there are frequently separate user accounts even on the same system, a “shared” folder may be necessary for his wife to open them.

Furthermore, Sherman saying that the RIAA is “not interested in going after people for who copy music to their computer (or their music player) for personal use” is not the same as saying the RIAA considers it legal.

]]> By: Bennett Haselton http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong/#comment-286706 Bennett Haselton Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:08:18 +0000 http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/riaa-says-copying-music-to-computer-for-personal-use-ok-washington-post-and-blogs-have-it-wrong#comment-286706 While it looks like Marc Fisher's column is wrong with regard to the Howell case, he unfortunately got one thing right -- the head of litigation for Sony BMG, Jennifer Pariser, really did say: "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'." according to http://tinyurl.com/2cln52 and many other sites that reported her comments. While it looks like Marc Fisher’s column is wrong with regard to the Howell case, he unfortunately got one thing right — the head of litigation for Sony BMG, Jennifer Pariser, really did say:

“When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’.”

according to http://tinyurl.com/2cln52 and many other sites that reported her comments.

]]>