[identity profile] the2wittybird.livejournal.com 2008-06-18 05:30 pm (UTC)(link)
oh i posted the wrong article but not by much. the dude referred to is being sued for SHARING the files but the argument was still made in court that merely ripping is also illegal and while I have not torn their site apart looking for it, I am let to believe that the RIAA maintains on their website that ripping is illegal. This is not supported by actual specific law but if it's upheld in a court case....

[identity profile] the2wittybird.livejournal.com 2008-06-18 06:02 pm (UTC)(link)
wow...i corrected myself just in time to NOT save myself a flamin' ;)

the article mentions Jammie Thomas yes, but the court case I am referring to and mentioned in the article is not her but Jeffrey Howell. She did lose her case (mostly cuz her attorney was WAY less effective as the RIAA's were--the technical considerations in the case would very likely have gotten her off if her lawyer even knew what they were...)

And I will clarify my very original quote "And they now decide that it should be illegal to rip your cds to mp3 format?"

"They" = record companies and RIAA. and "Should Be" does mean it's not yet, but nevertheless being argued in actual courts.

[identity profile] jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com 2008-06-18 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Extension of this sort of "logic" would also make it illegal for public libraries and copy machines to exist.

[identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com 2008-06-18 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Read the correction at the top--the company was apparently claiming that it was illegal *not* because the buyer ripped to mp3 but because the buyer put the mp3s in a shared folder on a peer-to-peer network.

I don't doubt some people in the music industry would like to make ripping to mp3 illegal, but I see no indication here that any actual moves are being made in that direction.