"While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?"
Help me, I'm stupid. I've been through that little section there three times, and I'm still not sure what it means.
It sounds like it's saying that presumably, ripping a copy of a CD you own is fair use, but has never been tested in court as such. I follow that. So the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot because "a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal." Meaning it will remain untested in court unless/until the RIAA tries to argue that ripping a copy of your CD is not fair use? Isn't that what's happening right now?