<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>rare pattern</title>
  <subtitle>thoughts in a blog</subtitle>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2008/01/riaa-not-going-after-personal-copies-so-far"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://rarepattern.com/node/190/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://rarepattern.com/node/190/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-01-02T08:42:16-06:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>RIAA not going after personal copies, so far</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2008/01/riaa-not-going-after-personal-copies-so-far" />
    <id>http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2008/01/riaa-not-going-after-personal-copies-so-far</id>
    <published>2008-01-02T08:42:13-06:00</published>
    <updated>2008-01-02T08:42:16-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura Scott</name>
    </author>
    <category term="copyright" />
    <category term="intellectual property" />
    <category term="music" />
    <category term="RIAA" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Update on <a href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2007/12/riaas-legal-rootkit-copy-your-cd-your-ipod-get-sued">my RIAA post yesterday</a>: Via <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml">Techdirt</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Back at the beginning of December, we helped <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/101325.shtml">debunk</a> a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer.  That story was misleading, at best.  While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were <i>not</i> going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a <i>shared Kazaa folder</i>.  Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs.  Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html">repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs</a>.  That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/establishment-press-takes-riaa-on.html">question the Washington Post</a> on this as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Good news -- or not the bad news we thought -- at least so far.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Update on <a href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2007/12/riaas-legal-rootkit-copy-your-cd-your-ipod-get-sued">my RIAA post yesterday</a>: Via <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/124515.shtml">Techdirt</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Back at the beginning of December, we helped <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/101325.shtml">debunk</a> a story making the rounds claiming that the RIAA was going after a guy named Jeffrey Howell for ripping his own CDs to his computer.  That story was misleading, at best.  While we know that the RIAA is constantly pushing to extend both the meaning and scope of copyright law, in this case the details were pretty clear that they were <i>not</i> going after Howell for just ripping his CDs, but for putting those ripped files into a <i>shared Kazaa folder</i>.  Now you can (and we do!) disagree that simply putting files into a shared folder are infringement, but that's different than just claiming that ripping the CDs is illegal or that he was being targeted just for ripping the CDs.  Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story, again <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html">repeating that Howell is being targeted for ripping his own CDs</a>.  That's simply not true, and it's nice to see a true copyright expert like William Patry <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/establishment-press-takes-riaa-on.html">question the Washington Post</a> on this as well.</p></blockquote>
<p>Good news -- or not the bad news we thought -- at least so far.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
