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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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.