The ruling is that the RIO is not a recording device, and so isn't covered by existing laws. The ruling has nothing to do with which media types are covered. E.g. by the judge's reasoning, a the Rio is like a CD player or even a tape player - it is a mechanism for playing recorded sounds, not a mechanism for recording those sounds.
Presumably, MP3 *recorders* would still be recording devices and so fall under existing laws.
Can a RIO send a digital stream elsewhere?
Of course, by RIAA's logic, your cd player, interconnects,preamp, amp, speakerwire and speakers could be "recording devices"...
Slashdot Mirror
Metafont predates these patent applications by at least 3 years and looks (to me) like it effectively covers all the claims.
What will they rethink of next?
The ruling is that the RIO is not a recording device, and so isn't covered by existing laws.
The ruling has nothing to do with which media
types are covered. E.g. by the judge's reasoning,
a the Rio is like a CD player or even a tape player - it is a mechanism for playing recorded
sounds, not a mechanism for recording those sounds.
Presumably, MP3 *recorders* would still be recording devices and so fall under existing laws.
Can a RIO send a digital stream elsewhere?
Of course, by RIAA's logic, your cd player, interconnects,preamp, amp, speakerwire and speakers could be "recording devices"...