I know where to find freaks in the net, thank you very much.

I don't need BB telling me about it.

Why don't you stick to what you are good at and leave the freakery to somebody else?

It is bleeding obvious that the RIAA is not claiming what Boingboingers are claiming they sad.

The important bit of information is the shared part.

As for having copies for all the family from an original source, that would be clearly illegal, since most cases of fair use talk about private copies of an original.

You can slice it any way you want, sharing ripped stuff from one CD with your family is infringing.

In the case mentioned of both family members having the CD reason says that then they could have one backup copy only that they could use as private.

Live by the sword....

MRA: what are you smoking?

Why should we give away the right to time shift stuff as we see fit?

Guess what, all BBC programs are already broadcast unencrypted, anybody can record them in a digital format inexpensively and then distribute them via p2p networks.

That is already happening, it will continue to happen, DRM or not (how difficult it is to put a camera in front of a DMRed TV and hit the record button?)

So exactly what is won by insisting on lame DRM that will be broken almost as soon as it is put in the hands of license fee payers?

The BBC has the clout to release lots of content (both old and new) DRM free.

Somebody is selling to the production companies the DRM snake oil, some naive souls like you are also buying it, it inconveniences the heck out of us, license fee payers while in the meantime people that infringe copyright as a commercial activity laugh all the way to the bank because they can brake idiotic DRM schemes as they see fit.