making mp3s from cd for personal use now "unauthorized"

[JStella]

At least if the RIAA has its way:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...-brief-in.html

From the RIAA brief, page 15:

"Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the “.mp3” extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. 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."

For now they are trying to use this against people sharing files over P2P networks, but if this stands it means that music, like DVDs, can't be moved to other devices for personal use without infringement of the DMCA. As pointed out in the site, the RIAA claimed in the past that making copies for personal use was legal and authorized. Now that they have the DMCA through, they are changing their tune...

- Josh

[Tele Fan]

Now we just need a legal loop hole making it legal to take a baseball bat upside the head of the members of the RIAA.

[woodman]

it's getting like Alice Through the Looking Glass ....

[fuzzferatu]

You know, in all this foofrah about mp3s, piracy, etc., I am forced to wonder when we're going after the REAL culprits. They've been under our noses the whole time.

Libraries and used record stores.

Cruelly ripping off artists and authors since the Library of Alexandria.

[Skully]

For now they are trying to use this against people sharing files over P2P networks, but if this stands it means that music, like DVDs, can't be moved to other devices for personal use without infringement of the DMCA. As pointed out in the site, the RIAA claimed in the past that making copies for personal use was legal and authorized. Now that they have the DMCA through, they are changing their tune...

Fortunately, the RIAA doesn't get to decide such matters.

[woodman]

Originally Posted by fuzzferatu

You know, in all this foofrah about mp3s, piracy, etc., I am forced to wonder when we're going after the REAL culprits. They've been under our noses the whole time.

Libraries and used record stores.

Cruelly ripping off artists and authors since the Library of Alexandria.

HAHAHAHAHA! go get 'em, steve!

[JStella]

Originally Posted by Skully

Fortunately, the RIAA doesn't get to decide such matters.

They (and the MPAA) had tremendous influence on the DMCA which makes it illegal to circumvent DRM and makes a person who shares two mp3s a felon. This is why Sony among others tried to DRM music CDs and why they tried to get the whole music DVD thing going. They want you to pay for every delivery mechanism you want to employ, and they are trying to sneak it in with precedent where they've struggled with legislation. The brief quoted was a response to the judge specifically asking if making the mp3s was unauthorized, so they are really trying to say that ripping for personal use is illegal. Let's hope the judge sees this for what it is and tells them they don't get to make the law...

- Josh

[TeleConvert]

yes, it seems that they are getting a little heavy-handed, but I have to wonder if they'll go so far as to say that you can't rip your CDs to the hard drive anymore. It has always been allowable to make a copy of something to, for example, play it in your car. I tend to back things up so I can carry around copies rather than risk my precious originals.

BTW, I asked at a used CD store in New Orleans about royalties, and they said that they have to record every sale and pay some kind of royalty (possibly like the blanket royalty that bars pay to allow cover bands). Every time I went there, they did write the album title and artist into a ledger. I am not so naive as to believe that everyone is so scrupulous, though. Just some thoughts...

[JStella]

Originally Posted by TeleConvert

yes, it seems that they are getting a little heavy-handed, but I have to wonder if they'll go so far as to say that you can't rip your CDs to the hard drive anymore. It has always been allowable to make a copy of something to, for example, play it in your car. I tend to back things up so I can carry around copies rather than risk my precious originals.

Only if you didn't circumvent copy protection to do it. It is illegal to copy a DVD for personal use for example:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/24/comm...y/dvd_burning/

So if a CD has copy protection on it (all DVDs and HD/BluRay disks do have DRM), circumventing it is illegal - that's already established law. Really stupid and evil law given that the financial damages make a person a felon for copying a single CD IMO, but established.

- Josh

[TeleConvert]

Originally Posted by JStella

Only if you didn't circumvent copy protection to do it. It is illegal to copy a DVD for personal use for example:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/24/comm...y/dvd_burning/

So if a CD has copy protection on it (all DVDs and HD/BluRay disks do have DRM), circumventing it is illegal - that's already established law. Really stupid and evil law given that the financial damages make a person a felon for copying a single CD IMO, but established.

- Josh

I hate that! I would think (being not a lawyer) that given the value of a CD, (10-20 bucks) the theft of the music by copying it would be petty-theft. Maybe it is safer to shoplift them after all! (not that I'm advocating that)

[JStella]

Originally Posted by TeleConvert

I hate that! I would think (being not a lawyer) that given the value of a CD, (10-20 bucks) the theft of the music by copying it would be petty-theft. Maybe it is safer to shoplift them after all! (not that I'm advocating that)

$750/song *at the minimum* according to DMCA... A CD is therefore worth approximately $8250 on average. You aren't buying the CD, you are buying the right to listen to it.

- Josh

[ghosttour]

Anyone who makes money off selling music has been crapping their pants for years now about "unauthorized duplication." As technology gets more sophisticated it's harder and harder for them to wring every last cent out of their catalog. The desperate measures they're taking to prevent digital file sharing indicates an awareness that the cash cow is finally on its way out of the barnyard gate. IMO it's ultimately futile to try and stop it; people are always going to find a way around barriers to filesharing...

[Durtdog]

Originally Posted by TeleConvert

I hate that! I would think (being not a lawyer) that given the value of a CD, (10-20 bucks) the theft of the music by copying it would be petty-theft. Maybe it is safer to shoplift them after all! (not that I'm advocating that)

Yes, since many people are determined to steal music, maybe shoplifting is a good, if low-tech way to get the music they want to listen to. They willingly pay $4 for a cup of coffee, but are too cheap to pay for a cd...the shoplifting would appear to carry less of a penalty for those folks.

[Dano]

and I don't know the full particulars of the case, but the defendant did two things, "... 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." He made the copies, AND he put them into his shared folder. Perhaps the copying was OK, by the Fair Use doctrine, but maybe they're assuming that since he put the files into the "shared folder," he was planning to make them available to others. If he had put them into a folder labeled "secret stuff -- don't look" with pictures of skulls and crossbones, mebbe he'd be OK. Fair Use is well-established, so it'll be interesting to see where in fact the plaintiff's arguments come from.

[JStella]

Originally Posted by Dano

and I don't know the full particulars of the case, but the defendant did two things, "... 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." He made the copies, AND he put them into his shared folder. Perhaps the copying was OK, by the Fair Use doctrine, but maybe they're assuming that since he put the files into the "shared folder," he was planning to make them available to others. If he had put them into a folder labeled "secret stuff -- don't look" with pictures of skulls and crossbones, mebbe he'd be OK. Fair Use is well-established, so it'll be interesting to see where in fact the plaintiff's arguments come from.

Indeed. The brief was filed on the specific question of whether the converted files were themselves unauthorized. The plaintiffs describe the files themselves as unauthorized - not the action of placing them in the folder. I think they are trying to sneak one past the judge here. Hopefully he'll catch it.

- Josh

[Pesty]

Canada is trying to get in a version of the DMCA, and it's meeting huge public resistance.

Ours if passed as is, would be even stricter and even more ridiculous. They want to make it so that any device that could be used for copying a digital item ilegal. Obviously they haven't realized that makes computers ilegal.

Dr. Michael Geist, a proffessor of Law at the University of Ottawa, an advisor for the BBC, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citezen in regards to copyright issues, and creator/consulting editor of the BNA Internet Law News, created this video about Canadian Piracy, and it shows a lot of U.S. Statistics in it as well.

Putting Canadian "Piracy" in Perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TloG6qL3gg

What's really interesting, is how this shows that the Candian Recording Industry Association, (CRIA,) is claiming that Canadian record sales are down. This fails to show that hundreds of Canadian Recording Artists have left the CRIA to form the Candian Music Creator's Coalition. http://www.musiccreators.ca/

The CEO of Universal Music Group, has this nice quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Morris via TechDirt

"There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"

Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person -- anyone with a good bull**** story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."

Taken from this article
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/011720.shtml

Yeah.... Not to sure what to say to wrap up after that doozie.

[tiktok]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

Yes, since many people are determined to steal music, maybe shoplifting is a good, if low-tech way to get the music they want to listen to. They willingly pay $4 for a cup of coffee, but are too cheap to pay for a cd...the shoplifting would appear to carry less of a penalty for those folks.

Every coffeeshop I go into is playing music for me when I walk in. I can't remember the last time i got a free cup of coffee when I walked into a CD store to shop. It's almost as if there's some fundamental difference between consumable goods and music.

[Pesty]

Good point about Consumable and Digital Goods.

Digital Goods can be replicated, distributed, edited, all without anything physical changing except for the orentation of some microscopic magnetic particles. With one click you can make a copy of something

Consumable goods must be fabricated, transported, once you have one of something, you can't just tap it and duplicate it.

[Bill]

I don't know about you scofflaws, but I always pay full retail price for the CD regardless of the sticker price, and then mail it back to the music company after I've listened to it once (more than once would be cheating in my opinion).

Sincerely,

Bill Baeck
Sony Company Stooge

[telejake]

My question is; how can anyone stand the compressed sound of an MP3/ipod? Artists spend tons of money to record in 96K or even 192K and it's turned to cr*p on one of those things. I have heard everyone from Phil Ramone to Hans Zimmer say the world of quality recording is in serious trouble. I work in the digital console world and even live guys are seeing the effects of this. The MP3/ipod generation does not know quality sound. They think the compressed sound of an MP3 is good!

[tiktok]

My question is; how can anyone stand the harsh digital sound of a CD? Artists spend tons of money to record in 96K or even 192K and it's turned to 16-bit cr*p on one of those things. I have heard everyone from Phil Ramone to Hans Zimmer say the world of quality recording is in serious trouble. The digital generation does not know quality sound. They think the digital sound of a CD is good!

[Telelicious]

Here! Here! The quality is so low in these formats that you can almost visualize the sine pattern. Maybe they could make a distinction in qualities part of their efforts.

Speaking of. Does anyone here remember a little something called Quadraphonic?
There was nothing more exilerating than sitting in the middle of a room listening to Stranglehold in Analog quadraphonic.

Ive got stranglehold on my XM (MP3) and it sounds like crap. Wheres the swirl!!??

Yeah, what about that?
XM and Sirius let you capture and save any song or program that plays over Satalite.

[Ben Harmless]

Originally Posted by telejake

My question is; how can anyone stand the compressed sound of an MP3/ipod? Artists spend tons of money to record in 96K or even 192K and it's turned to cr*p on one of those things. I have heard everyone from Phil Ramone to Hans Zimmer say the world of quality recording is in serious trouble. I work in the digital console world and even live guys are seeing the effects of this. The MP3/ipod generation does not know quality sound. They think the compressed sound of an MP3 is good!

As someone who has made his living with his ears, I'll say this right now: I don't care.

Sure, artists record at 192 sometimes (I'll go ahead and assume based on my knowledge of the recording industry that most don't) but they know full well that it's going to 16 bit 44.1k right out of mastering. The difference between 96k and 192k is not audible. That's right. Not audible. The difference is simply in the amount of data that you've got to work with once it's time to start degrading it.

What does bother me is the very obvious results of overcompression in the loudness wars in mastering - that and the near-obligation that commercial radio stations feel to redline every second of programming until it turns into mush.

There's my point though. My iPod playing 192k .mp3s sounds clearer than does my local radio station, but I don't hear anyone whining that radio stations are bad - I hear people writing nostalgic songs about them.

And isn't the argument pretty much moot as long as you're enjoying the song? I mean, it's a song we're talking about here. I don't buy records from my favorite artists so that I can enjoy the recording. I buy them for songs.

I'm sorry, but I feel like this constant nitpicking by engineers such as myself (and I've done it) is ultimately only geeky cork-sniffing.

Go listen to Alan Lomax's recordings of Lead Belly. Are you going to complain that "Good Night Irene" is unlistenable? It's one of the best things I've ever heard.

As far as the subject matter of the thread goes - the RIAA freaks me out. They may not be the ones who technically make the laws, but they seem to be defacto lawmakers anyway. It seems as though congress is scared to call them on their bull for fear of being accused of being anti-free-market - which is worse than being called a communist today.

And before anyone comes rushing to the defense of the RIAA as an organization devoted to representing artists, understand that the group has been demonstrated to be as shady as they come. The RIAA listed the punk-powerhouse Fat Records as one of its members when it started to make its moves against digital music. Fat had to threaten legal action to get removed from legal documents involved in the RIAA's court cases. Six months later, RIAA put Fat back on the list, against its wishes. Fat wasn't alone. The list contained a large number of artists and labels who were never, ever associated with the RIAA, but it sure was a nice long list to bring to court...

Make no mistake, if allowed to, the RIAA will make sure you're charged royalties for CDs you own, based on how often you might listen to them over your lifetime. It's time for the major labels to sit down and inform their lab-grown pop acts (the ones who whine the loudest about digital music) that they might have to do what millions of musicians all over the world have to do to make a living - actually play their music for an audience.

[Nick JD]

Oops - I've got a guitar that's a low-bitrate copy of a Telecaster.

If they get anymore anal in the Land of Selling CDs, we'll all start buying music straight from the artist. That'll learn 'em.

[Bill]

Time to bring out the wax cylinders.

[Big Tony]

I went to an art gallery the other day.

I looked at those paintings for free!!

Don't tell anybody, but I looked at some paintings several times!!!

Are the cops gonna hunt me down?

/ Tony

[MulliganChebichev]

If there's a will, there's a way.

There's always a loophole, just depends on where you look.

[Joel Terry]

Originally Posted by Ben Harmless

As someone who has made his living with his ears, I'll say this right now: I don't care.

Sure, artists record at 192 sometimes (I'll go ahead and assume based on my knowledge of the recording industry that most don't) but they know full well that it's going to 16 bit 44.1k right out of mastering. The difference between 96k and 192k is not audible. That's right. Not audible. The difference is simply in the amount of data that you've got to work with once it's time to start degrading it.

What does bother me is the very obvious results of overcompression in the loudness wars in mastering - that and the near-obligation that commercial radio stations feel to redline every second of programming until it turns into mush.

There's my point though. My iPod playing 192k .mp3s sounds clearer than does my local radio station, but I don't hear anyone whining that radio stations are bad - I hear people writing nostalgic songs about them.

And isn't the argument pretty much moot as long as you're enjoying the song? I mean, it's a song we're talking about here. I don't buy records from my favorite artists so that I can enjoy the recording. I buy them for songs.

I'm sorry, but I feel like this constant nitpicking by engineers such as myself (and I've done it) is ultimately only geeky cork-sniffing.

Go listen to Alan Lomax's recordings of Lead Belly. Are you going to complain that "Good Night Irene" is unlistenable? It's one of the best things I've ever heard.

As far as the subject matter of the thread goes - the RIAA freaks me out. They may not be the ones who technically make the laws, but they seem to be defacto lawmakers anyway. It seems as though congress is scared to call them on their bull for fear of being accused of being anti-free-market - which is worse than being called a communist today.

And before anyone comes rushing to the defense of the RIAA as an organization devoted to representing artists, understand that the group has been demonstrated to be as shady as they come. The RIAA listed the punk-powerhouse Fat Records as one of its members when it started to make its moves against digital music. Fat had to threaten legal action to get removed from legal documents involved in the RIAA's court cases. Six months later, RIAA put Fat back on the list, against its wishes. Fat wasn't alone. The list contained a large number of artists and labels who were never, ever associated with the RIAA, but it sure was a nice long list to bring to court...

Make no mistake, if allowed to, the RIAA will make sure you're charged royalties for CDs you own, based on how often you might listen to them over your lifetime. It's time for the major labels to sit down and inform their lab-grown pop acts (the ones who whine the loudest about digital music) that they might have to do what millions of musicians all over the world have to do to make a living - actually play their music for an audience.

I am finally glad to hear someone--especially someone who earns his living in the field of audio--point out that the emperor ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES! I am so flippin' glad. Ben, you're my hero, bud.

I can't take most audiophiles. Never could. Most self-professed audiophiles perilously toe the line of pretentiousness, in my opinion.

Who am I to make such a galling statement? Well, I'm a musician who has: 1. Perfect hearing--at less than one month from age 40, I can hear the entire frequency range from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz; and: 2. Perfect pitch. Hey, I can sing a 60-cycle hum and tunemy guitar, bass, mandolin, and banjo by it--it's a slightly flat B two octaves below middle C on a piano tuned to A=440 Hz (which I can also sing to tune my instruments, for what it's worth).

Here's an earful: If you primarily listen to a song in hopes of finding the bugaboos that are latent noise, 60-cycle hums, hiss, sibilance, clipping--whatever--then I'm afraid I've got bad news for you, Batman...you can't hear "t" fortis for the "t's."

Personally, I primarily listen to music for the instrumentation, the musicianship, the chord progressions, the melody, the harmonies, the lyrics--you know, the music. Call me crazy.

As for the RIAA, well, it has indeed shown several shades of idiocy, intimidation, and enmity through the years, what with the Glazier/"works made for hire" slip they tried to give artists a few years ago; gross aggregation of lost royalty claims in lawsuits; lawsuits filed against IP addresses rather than actual individuals in file-sharing cases, which, of course, implicates the computer's owner (who may not necessarily be the person sharing files); etc.

Hey, you can bet I'm all for artists getting their royalties--believe you me, I am; however, the RIAA is just as it name says: an association for the recording industry, not artists. Accuse me of picking gnat scat out of ground black pepper if you must, but there is a dichotomy between the two.

Ben, for both points--digital music fidelity and the RIAA--you get my vote for Brilliant Mind Of The Year award.

Joel

[Gilamnstr]

Originally Posted by Joel Terry

...I can't take most audiophiles. Never could. Most self-professed audiophiles perilously toe the line of pretentiousness, in my opinion....

Man, I'm glad somebody else came out and said it!

I'm no "Gen X'er" - I grew up listening to vinyl, 8-tracks and cassettes (even still have a lot of my vinyl collection), had all-tube "hi-fi" players (remember those huge wooden cabinets that were more like actual furniture?), and I just can't find it in me to wax nostalgic over clicks, pops and hisses, nor over my 8-tracks and cassettes being turned into balls of tangled, mangled, stringy mess. I'm no pro sound engineer, nor am I a pro musician - all I can lay claim to is being a so-so guitar player and lifelong music lover/listener....but I'm glad that I never developed the "audiophile ear". I'd hate to have my enjoyment of listening to music spoiled by worrying about encoding bitrates, or having to cringe over digital voice correction, artifacts, etc. I'm perfectly happy to listen with my ears rather than an oscilloscope/spectrum analyzer.

Thank you to both Joel and Ben - I agree 100% with both of your posts in their entirety. You're BOTH my freakin' heroes.

[garytelecastor]

So what can be done to stop this Juggernaut?

[Larry F]

Just a little ancient history here. Does anyone remember when the RIAA held up the commercial production of DAT recorders in the mid-1980s? They must have had a lot of clout to do that for over a year, as I remember it.

The consumable vs. digital debate is interesting. I'll bet a 12-year old digital thief does not feel guilty about stealing primarily for the reason that the owner still has the object in his possession after the theft occurs. As we all know, sometimes too painfully well, 12-year olds are very literal in their interpretation of things. If education is the issue, as some say, then it should emphasize this point. We 50-year olds have no problem understanding this, but a 12-year is a vastly different creature, putting it mildly.

[JStella]

Originally Posted by Larry F

Just a little ancient history here. Does anyone remember when the RIAA held up the commercial production of DAT recorders in the mid-1980s? They must have had a lot of clout to do that for over a year, as I remember it.

The consumable vs. digital debate is interesting. I'll bet a 12-year old digital thief does not feel guilty about stealing primarily for the reason that the owner still has the object in his possession after the theft occurs. As we all know, sometimes too painfully well, 12-year olds are very literal in their interpretation of things. If education is the issue, as some say, then it should emphasize this point. We 50-year olds have no problem understanding this, but a 12-year is a vastly different creature, putting it mildly.

I think the problem springs from a more general sense of amorality and greed in the culture. When the only goal society seems to value is getting rich at anyone's expense and CEOs and talentless celebrities are being paid hundreds or thousands of times what a PhD in biology is (never mind school teachers, soldiers, nurses, police, etc.) the message is loud and clear. Do whatever you can to get what you want. Screw the people working for you. Lie and cheat. Screw the actual artists (the WGA in this case) out of what little money they are asking for. Be the most egregious selfish jerk you can and give nothing back appears to be the new American Dream. Do that, and you'll have a string of supermodel girlfriends and be on TV showing off your massive yacht.

Why should anyone feel guilty about taking whatever they can in this society? My personal answer is because I have a sense of dignity and a moral compass, but it's not an easy thing to hang onto these days.

The RIAA among others can't promote a culture of amoral greed for their profit while expecting the masses to act honestly. People learn by example.

- Josh

A working class hero is something to be!

[TelecasterBlooz]

Originally Posted by JStella

The RIAA among others can't promote a culture of amoral greed for their profit while expecting the masses to act honestly. People learn by example.

- Josh

A working class hero is something to be!

In other words, do as I say, not as I do....just another example of greed...

[Durtdog]

Originally Posted by JStella

I think the problem springs from a more general sense of amorality and greed in the culture. When the only goal society seems to value is getting rich at anyone's expense and CEOs and talentless celebrities are being paid hundreds or thousands of times what a PhD in biology is (never mind school teachers, soldiers, nurses, police, etc.) the message is loud and clear. Do whatever you can to get what you want. Screw the people working for you. Lie and cheat. Screw the actual artists (the WGA in this case) out of what little money they are asking for. Be the most egregious selfish jerk you can and give nothing back appears to be the new American Dream. Do that, and you'll have a string of supermodel girlfriends and be on TV showing off your massive yacht.

Why should anyone feel guilty about taking whatever they can in this society? My personal answer is because I have a sense of dignity and a moral compass, but it's not an easy thing to hang onto these days.

The RIAA among others can't promote a culture of amoral greed for their profit while expecting the masses to act honestly. People learn by example.

- Josh

A working class hero is something to be!

Woah...scary...you sound like me on a bad day.

[petebradt]

Originally Posted by telejake

My question is; how can anyone stand the compressed sound of an MP3/ipod? Artists spend tons of money to record in 96K or even 192K and it's turned to cr*p on one of those things. I have heard everyone from Phil Ramone to Hans Zimmer say the world of quality recording is in serious trouble. I work in the digital console world and even live guys are seeing the effects of this. The MP3/ipod generation does not know quality sound. They think the compressed sound of an MP3 is good!

I USED to know quality sound and I can hear it if I A/B between a CD-audio file and an M4A but if you encode at 256K, there is very little difference. Of course, my ears are very damaged and I have to eq more highs in in order for it to sound like I want it to.

I record 24/44.1 (best the 001 will doe for non-video audio) and I can hear the difference but in the majority of listening situations I'm in (Ipod in a JBL dock with speakers) you're not going to hear the difference.

[Big John]

So, i've got this genie, he's jumped out of his bottle and i'll be darned if i can get him to jump back in !!

[boris bubbanov]

Originally Posted by Joel Terry

Ben, for both points--digital music fidelity and the RIAA--you get my vote for Brilliant Mind Of The Year award.
Joel

+1 Ben, real well thought out submission, very persuasive.


The thing to watch on these lawsuits is what one calls standing. Are the litigants who they say they are, do they truly represent opposing sides of a legal argument with sufficient resources and inclination to permit a fair fight, or was one side or the other cherry picked to bend over and be done to?

Hopefully with the exchange of ideas like we see on forums like this, and the resources and imagination of some federal courts, we will not get any court decisions rendered out of indifference or neglect. Beware the scaredy defendant who will agree to make any damaging admission the recording industry association puts before them.

Bubbanov

[JStella]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

Woah...scary...you sound like me on a bad day.

LOL! Never thought I'd hear that from you DD!

- Josh

[Ericdb_1]

Originally Posted by telejake

My question is; how can anyone stand the compressed sound of an MP3/ipod? Artists spend tons of money to record in 96K or even 192K and it's turned to cr*p on one of those things. I have heard everyone from Phil Ramone to Hans Zimmer say the world of quality recording is in serious trouble. I work in the digital console world and even live guys are seeing the effects of this. The MP3/ipod generation does not know quality sound. They think the compressed sound of an MP3 is good!

I know, right? Kids these days. I mean, back in the day, when music was good, we had cassette tapes. Now that was some good sounding tunes.

[Califiddler]

Originally Posted by JStella

Indeed. The brief was filed on the specific question of whether the converted files were themselves unauthorized. The plaintiffs describe the files themselves as unauthorized - not the action of placing them in the folder. I think they are trying to sneak one past the judge here. Hopefully he'll catch it.

- Josh

This mischaracterizes the RIAA Supplemental Brief. I read the entire brief. Contrary to what is claimed in that blog that linked the brief, and contrary to what JStella claims, at no point in the Supplemental Brief does the RIAA claim that simply copying songs from a CD onto the hard drive of your computer is infringement. Nor is the brief about whether the converted files were themselves unauthorized. The brief is in response to an order from the court asking the litigants to address 4 issues. The brief focuses on whether the defendant "distributed" the copyrighted work, and argues that he did, by doing two things: 1) actually distributing 11 files from his shared folder to Plaintiffs' investigator; and 2) placing files in a "shared" folder where they were available for download by other peer-to-peer users of the Kazaa network. The "shared" folder wasn't just a folder called "shared"; it was the folder from which the files were available for download by others. Until the defendant moved the files into that folder, they were not available for download by other Kazaa users. Nowhere in that brief does the RIAA claim that the defendant infringed the copyright until he moved the files into the shared folder, thereby making them availabe for download by other Kazaa users.

Now that's not saying that the RIAA won't take that position in the future, but they did not in this brief.