On Dec 30, 2007 4:04 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > computer. The industry's lawyer in the case . . . > > argues in a brief . . . that the MP3 files Howell > > made on his computer from legally bought CDs are > > 'unauthorized copies' of copyrighted recordings." > > What he actually argued was that once the defendant and like acting others > make and convert copies of music to ".mp3" format, the preferred mode for > peer-to-peer transmission, and place them into shared directories on their > computers (that is, again: make them available for peer-to-peer > redistribution) , those sorts of copies no longer are "authorized" because > . . . guess what? . . . they no longer are "personal" (or solely > "archival") copies in the copyright law "fair use" sense of that term.
That may be so, but the RIAA's phrasing is very curious. The exact quote was: "Once (the defendant) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff." The first clause of that sentence was completely redundant. They could have just said "Once the defendant placed the music in his shared folder..." Google's copyright counsel writes in his blog that the RIAA may be using language and rhetoric as a means of control. I agree with this theory. I think the RIAA is trying to push the limits of what they can restrict. Very likely this phrasing was a "trial balloon", ambiguous enough to cause some doubt, while still allowing deniability if the backlash proves to be too much. http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/establishment-press-takes-riaa-on.html -raghu.
