The RIO is manufactured in Korea - a TRO or preliminary injunction only applies in the United States. Diamond is going "full tilt" in Korea - I would imagine. If they can not sell into the US market... there is still all of SE Asia!
Diamond is correct in maintaining that the RIO is a playback device only. All recording and coping of MP3 files (all of which CAN be legal) is done by the host computer onto the flash memory disk. The disk is inserted into the RIO for playback only.... there is absolutely no circuitry in the RIO for recording or encoding. The RIO is only decoding and playing back the MP3 on the removable medium flash disk generated by the computer.
Of course, the U.S. District judge was probably assigned the case because of known bias in favor of the recording industry, lack of specific computer knowledge related to MP3, and/or known bias to continue BAD law, set BAD precedent, and generally create more money making opportunities for judges, lawyers, and the court system - while impeding free enterprise and stifling healthy competition and more open opportunities in the music recording industry.
As always, the defendant is presumed guilt by associating even though they are in NO way illegally recording copyrighted material - but, hey, isn't all law designed to protect those organization that are in power and suppress any options that threat the existing power structure!! Of course - the domino theory worked in Vietnam... it will also work on Diamond.
All it takes is a judge with "juevos" and the ability to use and exercise "common" sense - the ultimate basis of all good law.
IMO, nick |
