| Re: RIAA apologizes to Penn State As I recall that particular situation Mr. Usher did have some songs on his computer, only they were ones he wrote. As for the admin saying there were no mp3 or other audio files on the server that doesn't mean that the RIAA wasn't looking for them. As a matter of fact as I recall that particular issue (which was highly publicized a few months back) the RIAA did claim they found mp3 files they thought to be owned by them.
The link, nor the story behind it, says anything about the RIAA looking for non-music files. So I believe my statement still stands.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by SRFireside:
The link, nor the story behind it, says anything about the RIAA looking for non-music files. So I believe my statement still stands.
How did you arrive at that conclusion. The article specifically mentions that the main reason RIAA "warned" the university was simply because of having scanned for mp3s and happened to find the name "Usher." Obviously, it was the name itself that led them to conclude a copyright infringement. Had the mp3 been named Ralph or some other innocuous sounding title, I seriously doubt the RIAA would have bothered sending a notice.
--
A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.»www.digitalconsumer.org |
|
| It's still an mp3 file they found. My point is the RIAA isn't looking for text files or image files, but audio files. I was responding to a post about messing up the RIAA with lots of alternate files with band names like family photos and album lists on MS Word documents. Just because the RIAA found an audio file that wasn't a song they own doesn't make my argument any less valid. They still did their search by mp3 files.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
|
|
