MP3 device makers win at the court

Beke sent us the latest update from the MP3 universe. A US Federal Judge has ruled that Diamond's Rio does not fall under the "digital recording device" definition, as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means that the Rio does not have implement a code system to prevent serial re-recording. So, the act does apply to tapes and CDs - but not to hard drives, says Diamond's attorney.

Comments

Re:Iiiinteresting

[MindStalker]

Well yes, the RIAA will probably now turn around and say that a computer qualifies as a digital recording device (which is pretty much does) but because of the fact that a computer is such a general use device the courts will most likly laugh in the RIAA's face.

Pinch me I must be dreaming!

[Fish Man]

What a great day for consumer freedom!

First the death of DIVX, now the liberation of personal MP3 players!

Next article: "Microsoft abandons attempt to produce final version of Windows 2000, It's just to bloated and badly written to adequately debug, recomends Windows users switch to Linux."

(Sorry, all this good news just got me carried away!)

2 good news items in a row

[anticypher]

First, DIVX is dead!
Second, MP3 on hard drives is legal and the RIAA lawyers were sent scurrying away with their tails between their legs.

Once again, the courts are starting to show they can make the right decisions when they know about the underlying technologies. The RIAA were just trying to be greedy and kill an emerging technology because it might break their monopolistic stranglehold on the market. The court seems to have seen through that lie, and saw that the RIO allows only single copies to be made at a time.

Notice they cleverly sidestepped the issue of the legality of MP3s, so the battle with the RIAA will go on until no more lawyers will touch the case or the RIAA are all thrown into prison.

I like the DIVX quote about how all consumers liked it, but no retailers or music studios supported it. I thought nobody supported it, and the only people who bought the players were pressured into it by the Circuit City sales droids (commissions were twice for DIVX than for DVD alone).

And the DIVX silver allowing unlimited playing turns out not to be unlimited, but will stop playing in 2001.

Too much good news in one day from /.

the AntiCypher

Some more food for MP3 thought

[The Optimizer]

I've seen several other MP3 related news tidbits in the last day so with little fanfare, here's a rundown of them...

1. There was an article about MP3 usage by young people in yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, Page 1 of the Marketplace section). Basically it talks about how MP3 usage has migrated down from the college crowd to the High Schools and Middle Schools. Among other things, students mention the popularity of using the School's Computers and connections to download MP3's, and the ease of finding specific songs.

Comment. Have you even noticed how hard it is to find a lot of (even popular) songs on CD-singles? or how expensive they've become? I own over 1,000 audio CD's (anyone remember 3 inch CD-singles?) but I would probably have a lot more if (a) the right product (singles) was available and (b) the price was right. Right now the Music industry is failing badly on both counts. MP3's on the other hand, are delivering the goods in both departments.

2. If I recall correctly, Creative's Nomad unit is supposed to have voice recording capability built in. Maybe that's a great idea, but wouldn't that make it a big target for the RIAA as it would have anknowledged built-in recording capability; which the lack of was main part of the decision in the Rio's favor. I guess so far the Creative unit (is it shipping yet?) has stayed under the RIAA's radar.

3. Yesterday, I saw on NEWS.com the announcment that (some?) future RIO units will use IBM's matchbook-sized 340mb MicroDrive Hard Disk. Currently Storage Capacity is the big sticking point with my geek friends and portable MP3 players. 340mb == 5 1/2 hours @ 128Kbits.

Comment. My wife owns a RIO (32mb). While the memory size (8 songs usually) is a downside, the batter life and light weigh is an unexpected upside. She uses it a lot, including when she works out or rides her Motorcycle. And the thing is darn near indestructible. What good is 5 1/2 hours of music if battery life is only 4 hours? If new units need a better battery, wouldn't that mean heavier? I suspect however, the answer is to keep a bunch of RAM on the unit (16 or 32mb), and only fire up the drive every once in a while. Keep the current track in memory, and maybe the first 30 seconds of every track on the disk (so you can instantly switch tracks while the rest gets loaded in the background). Maybe I'm wrong the microdrive uses almost no juice. Anyone have more info on this issue?

4. Finally, has anyone given thought to "books on tape" becoming "books on MP3"? Audio books do suprisingly well; and taking a RIO with a book-on-tape on a 3 1/2 hour airplane flight would be way more convient that taking a bunch of tapes, tape player, and batteries.

Here's the ruling

[alkali]

People interested in this subject should read the full text of the decision.

Here's what I think is the core of the decision:

Even though it cannot directly reproduce a digital music recording, the Rio would nevertheless be a digital audio recording device if it could reproduce a digital music recording "from a transmission." 17 U.S.C. 1001(1). [...] The Senate Report [on the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992] provides a radio broadcast as an example of a transmission. [...] The parties [dispute] whether indirect reproduction of a transmission of a digital music recording is covered by the Act. RIAA asserts that indirect reproduction of a transmission is sufficient for the Rio to fall within the Act's ambit as a digital audio recording device.

[...] [T]he Rio can indirectly reproduce a transmission. For example, if a radio broadcast of a digital audio recording were recorded on a [DAT] and then uploaded to a computer hard drive, the Rio could indirectly reproduce the transmission by downloading a copy from the hard drive. Thus, if indirect reproduction of a transmission falls within the statutory definition, the Rio would be a digital audio recording device.

RIAA's interpretation of the statutory language initially seems plausible, but closer analysis reveals that it is contrary to the statutory language and common sense. [...] RIAA's interpretation of the Act's language ... would only cover the indirect recording of transmissions, and would omit restrictions on the direct recording of transmissions (e.g., recording songs from the radio) from the Act's ambit. [...] It makes little sense for the Act to restrict the indirect recording of transmissions, but to allow unrestricted direct recording of transmissions (e.g., to regulate second-hand recording of songs from the radio, but to allow unlimited direct recording of songs from the radio).

Here's an interesting footnote:

RIAA ... predicts that losses to digital Internet piracy will soon surpass the $300 million that is allegedly lost annually to other more traditional forms of piracy.(1)

(1) Whether or not piracy causes such financial harm is a subject of dispute. Critics of the industry's piracy loss figures have noted that a willingness to download illicit files for free does not necessarily correlate to lost sales, for the simple reason that persons willing to accept an item for free often will not purchase the same item, even if no longer freely available. Critics further note that the price of commercially available recordings already reflects the existence of copying and the benefits and harms such copying causes; thus, they contend, the current price of recordings offsets, at least in part, the losses incurred by the industry from home taping and piracy. [Citations omitted.]

Generally a pretty clueful opinion, IMHO.