This story is still not be reported correctly. The court briefing states that copying a CD to a computer in MP3 format and putting it in their shared KAZA folder is what made the copies illegal.
sony, disney and fox are the leading companies pushing propertarian, orwellian, anti consumer DRM lockouts and have the most lobbyists pushing congress to tighten the IP laws (DMCA), abolish fair use, criminalise ppl that use or even own software to circumnavigate any form of DRM and protect them from law suits when they run code on ppl's computers that cause damage and threaten your privacy by reporting information back to sony HQ about your computer usage (google: sony xcp).
sony, disney and fox are the MPAA they use piracy to scare monger ppl then make DRM secuROM, xcp and sell it to movie/game/cd makers and get paid from all sides and get fat while its the consumers that lose out as we are told we are pirates by sony for wanting to play our legally purchased cd's on our ipods because sony want 1 licence per device per user to quadruple their profits from each household, kinda like the military industrial complex.
sry to disappoint you but according to sony copying your cd's to your mp3 player is stealing!
Right, the brief does say that placing the MP3s in a directory known to be shared with the general public is de facto copyright violation, but:
The brief also has language that states a compressed digital MP3 copy of the song (which was provided uncompressed on an audio CD) is an unauthorized copy. The distinction is critical, because if the judge confirms in his summary motion, then this *could* become case law that is referenced elsewhere.
So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be.
Of course, I'm just speculating, but the industry's lawyers may be gearing up to say, in effect, the following:
You can buy an audio CD and copy it as a backup audio CD (for example, to play in your car because you know that your car CD player "eats" discs), but you may not convert it into an MP3 because that transcoding into a new media format is not authorized by the copyright holder. If you want it in MP3 (or other audio format), you must buy it that way through their authorized distribution network (iTunes, etc.).
EDR229: "So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be."
The courts have pretty regularly frowned upon the "but the bits are different!" defense in other cases, so that wouldn't be very consistent. They don't like dealing in technicalities when it comes to copyright. They've made it clear that the content is what counts, not the underlying data. The underlying data is just semantics.
There *is* existing case law that says that copying from CD to tape for personal use is legal. That's been tested; in fact, the RIAA has to *admit* it was legal, that was part of the agreement. I don't really see how ripping to mp3 is any different in the eyes of the court; certainly copying a CD to analog tape is not preserving the "bit structure" of the CD.
That's the essential allegation in every single p2p case -- I represent RIAA defendants. What's new here is the RIAA's claim that ripping a CD constitutes making an "unauthorized copy." Even still, it's not suing him for that, just for sharing.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
blah123 @ Dec 30th 2007 12:25PM
This story is still not be reported correctly. The court briefing states that copying a CD to a computer in MP3 format and putting it in their shared KAZA folder is what made the copies illegal.
pigfister @ Dec 30th 2007 2:24PM
sony, disney and fox are the leading companies pushing propertarian, orwellian, anti consumer DRM lockouts and have the most lobbyists pushing congress to tighten the IP laws (DMCA), abolish fair use, criminalise ppl that use or even own software to circumnavigate any form of DRM and protect them from law suits when they run code on ppl's computers that cause damage and threaten your privacy by reporting information back to sony HQ about your computer usage (google: sony xcp).
sony, disney and fox are the MPAA they use piracy to scare monger ppl then make DRM secuROM, xcp and sell it to movie/game/cd makers and get paid from all sides and get fat while its the consumers that lose out as we are told we are pirates by sony for wanting to play our legally purchased cd's on our ipods because sony want 1 licence per device per user to quadruple their profits from each household, kinda like the military industrial complex.
sry to disappoint you but according to sony copying your cd's to your mp3 player is stealing!
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
FTA: Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing" October 02, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
EDR229 @ Dec 30th 2007 2:34PM
Right, the brief does say that placing the MP3s in a directory known to be shared with the general public is de facto copyright violation, but:
The brief also has language that states a compressed digital MP3 copy of the song (which was provided uncompressed on an audio CD) is an unauthorized copy. The distinction is critical, because if the judge confirms in his summary motion, then this *could* become case law that is referenced elsewhere.
So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be.
Of course, I'm just speculating, but the industry's lawyers may be gearing up to say, in effect, the following:
You can buy an audio CD and copy it as a backup audio CD (for example, to play in your car because you know that your car CD player "eats" discs), but you may not convert it into an MP3 because that transcoding into a new media format is not authorized by the copyright holder. If you want it in MP3 (or other audio format), you must buy it that way through their authorized distribution network (iTunes, etc.).
This is dangerous... very dangerous...
Any IP attorneys want to chime in?
Jeff @ Dec 31st 2007 12:46AM
EDR229: "So, a personal-use-only "copy" with the same digital bit structure as it was provided to the buyer by the copyright owner is certainly fair-use, but by creating a new bit structure MP3, it may not be."
The courts have pretty regularly frowned upon the "but the bits are different!" defense in other cases, so that wouldn't be very consistent. They don't like dealing in technicalities when it comes to copyright. They've made it clear that the content is what counts, not the underlying data. The underlying data is just semantics.
There *is* existing case law that says that copying from CD to tape for personal use is legal. That's been tested; in fact, the RIAA has to *admit* it was legal, that was part of the agreement. I don't really see how ripping to mp3 is any different in the eyes of the court; certainly copying a CD to analog tape is not preserving the "bit structure" of the CD.
Nilay Patel @ Dec 31st 2007 3:53PM
That's the essential allegation in every single p2p case -- I represent RIAA defendants. What's new here is the RIAA's claim that ripping a CD constitutes making an "unauthorized copy." Even still, it's not suing him for that, just for sharing.