Comments on: RIAA’s latest file share claim

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:55:08 +0000

I have AOL which has XM Radio who’s quality is that of a CD. Using my software I record hours of this music (CD quality) and place it in my shared folder after using an MP3 splitter to edit and tag each song with the appropriate artist. The shared folder allows my wife or daughter when they’re using their PC’s to play any song they desire on my local area network. Attorney’s with the right knowledge should be able to blow the RIAA away with that and force the RIAA to show evidence music was DL illegally. Sirus radio works the same way, just plug the output into your soundcard and record CD quality music uintil your heart’s content.

Chevy

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:40:44 +0000

read carefully! Ray Beckerman is the attorney for the DEFENSE! he is trying to protect people from the RIAA.

the RIAA is a bunch of morons. They will lose their pants off in court, because they are not very smart, as it has been shown time and again.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:23:32 +0000

Now you know what they’re really after

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:50:27 +0000

“If one were to follow the RIAA’s reasoning regarding shared folders then if one were to leave a book or a CD laying out where someone could pick it up, copy it and return it, then merely leaving such copyrighted material unsecured in and of itself constitutes an act of copyright infringement.”

- it would also mean that if some steals a book, cd, movie etc. IF you are lucky enough to get it back, you would immediatly be guilty of copyright infringment, cause they might have copied it. Cuase if they git it it must have been insecure.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:46:45 +0000

hmm…I wonder. Lets say I buy a bunch of cds and rip them to my computer, not to a shared file but just to a regular file. But lets say that one of those cds was protected by the sony DRM rootkit virus. When I put the cd into my computer, the rootkit would automatically install itself, and we all know about the incredible security holes opened by the rootkit. Now lets say some hacker uses the rootkit as a back door to make a copy of the audio files on my computer for his/her use. Does that mean that Sony BMG, who created and distributed the rootkit, would be guilty of allowing copyright infringement? Could the copyright owners of the other audio files sue Sony BMG?

—0wnz

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 01:08:49 +0000

What a load of crap. If everyone followed Beckerman’s logic, there would be no libraries (someone could borrow a book and COPY IT! The horror!). People could be sued merely for lending a CD or a book to a friend, doctors could be sued for having copy written material in their waiting rooms. Etc. Etc.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:39:10 +0000

If one were to follow the RIAA’s reasoning regarding shared folders then if one were to leave a book or a CD laying out where someone could pick it up, copy it and return it, then merely leaving such copyrighted material unsecured in and of itself constitutes an act of copyright infringement. All of those “community bookshelves” (leave your old books/CDs/DVDs here for others to enjoy) in offices, dormitories, apartment/condo building lobbies, etc, are instances of copyright infringement then too.

It’s also interesting to note how the RIAA feels as though it can change the definition of words when it suits them. We now all know that something can be ’stolen’ that isn’t missing. Now ‘distribution’ has become a passive activity that can happen by merely having the incorrect permissions set on a directory. You can be fast asleep or 400 miles away from the computer, yet still be ‘distributing’.

Here’s a new word for the RIAA to ponder: ’specious.’

–TurboGeek

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:04:48 +0000

What a riducous claim. I have a home network. I have shared files so that what is on one computer is accessable by another within my home net. With all the malware out there it is hard to prevent the info or even the data for all I know from being accessable to the net.

A strickly bogus and vapourous arguement.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:45:32 +0000

If the RIAA does not stop their guerilla tactics, the courts can finally dismiss the case, reward the victims of these terrorists, finally make file sharing perfectly legal, and stop the RIAA and their affiliates. I say that their tactical procedures are definitely illegal (for one example is blackmail) because it is illegal to do the things they are doing even for us.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:38:49 +0000

Having a shared folder available on a P2P application is fundamentally no different than having a shared folder available via an HTTP, FTP, IRC DCC, etc. server. They are all the same thing, with different protocols for locating and accessing the data therein. Outlaw shared folders and you basically outlaw the Internet as we know it.