Replies

They "had" to in the past.

They no longer "have" to now.

That's what this is all about. A small band can distribute their music and promote their tour entirely over the internet now. We're not 100% there yet, but almost. The RIAA knows this is the trend of the future, and they know there's nothing they can do about it. They're acting to protect their copyrighted interests (read profit stream) while they can, because in 20 years or sooner, media isn't going to work the way it does now. We're talking about companies that have been around for almost 100 years - they have 20 and 50 year profit plans. p2p messed it up for them, and they're acting to protect their interests.

As I said, if they were only going after the admittedly widespread infringement that goes on in p2p, I would feel for them. Instead, they're having to argue that my dad copying a CD from the library is illegal, that me making a copy of a CD on tape for a friend is illegal, that copying a song off the radio is wrong. Because if they don't, then the logical argument behind going after the p2p-ers falls apart.

Like I said, the courts are going to sort this out, and the only ones unhappier than the p2p abusers is going to be RIAA.

They didn't "have" to then either.

You know, when you sign a contract with those guy's what you're in for.

But now, it's so easy.. they can simply bypass RIAA, and that suits me fine. If they're a bunch of legal begals and fat cats, then they are nothing more than dead weight.

Just cut them right out if they are so bad.

As you said, they may well end up being the big losers in this deal when it's all played out.

Instead, they're having to argue that my dad copying a CD from the library is illegal, that me making a copy of a CD on tape for a friend is illegal, that copying a song off the radio is wrong.

They don't "have" to argue these things. These things are already violations of copyright law. The logic behind the anti-downloading argument is not contingent on this things being true. You're making something of a tautology here.

I think a lot of folks around here are gonna be mighty surprised when more of this stuff gets into court. There's a real lack of understanding among a lot of folks on what copyright is all about. The decisions that come down from the bench -- including from our beloved conservative judges -- are going to favor copyright holders. Because there's not a lot of wiggle room for interpretation of the law here.