(I’ll assume that really is you.)

The point is that the RIAA is not claiming in court filings that they can go after people who simply upload CDs to their personal computers for use in, say, an iPod (as we do here at Lizard Central). They say, rightly or wrongly, that they are going after you for putting them into a shared KaZaA folder.

Now, if your argument is that they weren’t in a shared KaZaA (or other P2P) folder, that’s a factual difference that is properly resolved in a court. My only point was that the WaPo story falsely claimed that the RIAA was arguing they could legally sue customers, even if the RIAA itself believed those customers were only uploading CDs to computer en route to an MP3 player.

From all that I have seen, the RIAA never made such an argument. In fact, you have just quoted a refutation of the claim that they did…

* Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

· The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own;

· The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

They’re not saying you have the right to do so; that’s beyond the scope of what the RIAA cares to discuss. But they’re also not asserting that doing so is a litigatable tort.

As a published author, I have much experience with web sites that put up e-versions of my books for free downloads… and who angrily tell me I should be thanking them for promoting my fiction!

I can extrapolate to how much more annoyed a composer would be to find the music for which he should receive a royalty posted for free download on Napster or its successors, with the adolescent explanation that it’s somehow “good for the composer” to give away everything he creates for free. It’s like saying it’s good for movie-makers when people sneak into the theater without paying.

The reality is that people who upload and download copyrighted material for or from others are thieves, crooks, and liars. Maybe nobody ever told them that, and maybe they’re too dumb to understand; but it’s true. The rule that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” should be a clue-by-four, however.

They are completely different from those who simply transfer music from legitimately purchased CDs to their own MP3 players to listen at work… just for themselves, not to copy and pass around to all their friends, so the friends get to have their own copies for free without having to buy them — and without having to put money into the pockets of the people who wrote the music and depend upon it for their living.

I hope you see the distinction; and I hope you are on the side of the copyright holders — even when they are giant corporations who bought the copyright from the creators — and those who deserve royalties… not on the side of criminal freeloaders who think the world owes them everything they want for nothing down and nothing a month.

Dafydd

“What the Law Says and What it Means
If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law, and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.
That’s pretty important information to have, considering how serious it would be if you were caught and prosecuted by the authorities or sued in civil court. It’s even more important that you understand that when you illicitly make or distribute recordings, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission.
You may find this surprising. After all, when”

“Copying CDs
· It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
· It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
· Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
à The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
à The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.”

Coppied from the R.I.A.A. website.

That’s more truth than you might think, one of the excuses that Dan Rather used during the Rather/Mapes forged memo fiasco was that it was the White House’s fault since the WH did not identify the memo as a forgery to them fast enough.

I like your attitude and your blog but I could have done without the waxing image. It’s just wrong to wax a lizard.

Your repeated pummeling of the Los Angeles Dog Tr– er — Times made a deep impression on me, even before I was a guest blogger here; and the lesson I took from that bloody massacre was that being wrong now and again does not particularly hurt an entity’s credibility.

What hurts credibility is denying that you’re wrong, even when it has become undeniable. It reminds half the people of their fathers — and the other half the people of their teenaged sons.

Think of it like taking a Band-Aid off of some body part with a lot of hair (or waxing your chest, for those weirdos who do such a thing): It may hurt a lot to just rip it off, but it’s over quick. By contrast, trying to pull it off one milimeter at a time hurts just as much… but it continues for days!

Dafydd

Wrong again.

I’m in the central time zone, plus I start work at 6:30 am…which would be 4:30 am PST. I simpy read what you wrote over breakfast, and wrote a reply.

Don’t you ever tire of projecting?

You are arguing apples and oranges. My point was and is that blogs are not a viable alternative to the MSM. They need the MSM to be relevant.

Why? They are incapable of doing original reporting? You know…Who-What-When-Where-Why-How?

Many original stories rise in the blogosphere simply because the MSM won’t cover them.

Most don’t adhere to basic journalistic standards. Much of this is because they don’t have the resources for verification and research that the MSM does.

Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped that WaPo reporter write that RIAA story, huh?

Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped Dan Rather, huh?

Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped Reuters catch that blatantly obvious photoshopped picture they ran, huh?

That’s just a few examples.

Want more? Simply click on the Dog Trainer archive link. Our host has been playing LA Times Smackdown for years.

How do you explain the blogs beating the MSM like Georgia Tech did Cumberland College in 1912? (Final score: 222-0, the biggest shutout in the history of college football. No, that’s not a typo.)

Just because the MSM stinks doesn’t mean the blogs have or will replace it. At best they will cause the MSM to pay more attention to those standards mentioned.

Really? When?

I’m not the only person who sees it this way. Read “Cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen for a more detailed breakdown of what the internet is encouraging in terms of mediocrity.

Several people have already refuted this statement; I defer to them.

So… want to go another round? Or have you finally had enough?