Here's an interesting quote from one of the legal briefs in the case:
"Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs" [Supplemental Brief, page 15, lines 16-18, emphasis added].
The phrasing that they used seems to indicate that the MP3 files were authorized until they were placed into the shared folder. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that this means absolutely nothing, but it's still an interesting notion.
What it seems that they are saying is that the MP3's are authorized until used for an illegal purpose (i.e. file-sharing). Amazon's MP3 Music Service TOS seems to support this interpretation. It encourages users to make backup copies of MP3's they purchase (which would be authorized); and, if you violate any of the terms (such as infringing upon the copyright of the MP3), your license to use the music terminates, making the MP3 unauthorized. While the music in this case wasn't purchased from Amazon, it seems like the same philosophy is involved.
Details further in the brief support that concept as well. The brief infers that the copies became unauthorized at the moment the MP3 files were copied into the shared folder on the guy's computer.
Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs." [Supplemental brief, page 15, lines 16-18, emphasis added].
Realistically, all of this uproar over the RIAA's "argument" that ripping CD's is illegal is overkill. MusicUnited.org, of which the RIAA is a sponsor (check the links at the bottom of the page), makes it clear that while you might not have the right to rip the music from your CD, you're not going to cause any issues for yourself by making a "personal copy" (please note that I used the word "might" -- I'm not arguing if that right exists or not. I'm not a legal expert, and, in all honesty, it makes no difference in context). Link (See section on "Copying CDs" at the bottom of the page).
This argument isn't unreasonable. The RIAA is basically claiming that the MP3 became unauthorized once it was used for an illegal purpose (file-sharing). I don't see any problem with that. With regards to the AHRA (this is all covered in the Wikipedia article, but in summary), the issue is if a program used to rip CDs qualifies as a "digital audio recording device."
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an interesting quote from one of the legal briefs in the case:
The phrasing that they used seems to indicate that the MP3 files were authorized until they were placed into the shared folder. Now, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that this means absolutely nothing, but it's still an interesting notion.
What it seems that they are saying is that the MP3's are authorized until used for an illegal purpose (i.e. file-sharing). Amazon's MP3 Music Service TOS seems to support this interpretation. It encourages users to make backup copies of MP3's they purchase (which would be authorized); and, if you violate any of the terms (such as infringing upon the copyright of the MP3), your license to use the music terminates, making the MP3 unauthorized. While the music in this case wasn't purchased from Amazon, it seems like the same philosophy is involved.
Details further in the brief support that concept as well. The brief infers that the copies became unauthorized at the moment the MP3 files were copied into the shared folder on the guy's computer.
Realistically, all of this uproar over the RIAA's "argument" that ripping CD's is illegal is overkill. MusicUnited.org, of which the RIAA is a sponsor (check the links at the bottom of the page), makes it clear that while you might not have the right to rip the music from your CD, you're not going to cause any issues for yourself by making a "personal copy" (please note that I used the word "might" -- I'm not arguing if that right exists or not. I'm not a legal expert, and, in all honesty, it makes no difference in context). Link (See section on "Copying CDs" at the bottom of the page).
This argument isn't unreasonable. The RIAA is basically claiming that the MP3 became unauthorized once it was used for an illegal purpose (file-sharing). I don't see any problem with that. With regards to the AHRA (this is all covered in the Wikipedia article, but in summary), the issue is if a program used to rip CDs qualifies as a "digital audio recording device."