Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Marvin O Fretwell]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:01:15 -0700 Craig White <craig at tobyhouse.com>
writes:
> 
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:36 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Craig White wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:21 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> > >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Craig White wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 5 days after Washington Post published the story, the Arizona  
> 
> > >>> Republic
> > >>> finally figured out that there was a story here...
> > >>
> > >> Except that the story the Washington Post published was wrong,
> > >> sensationalized, and deliberately elided part of a quote so as 
> to
> > >> dramatically change its meaning.
> > > ----
> > > huh?
> > >
> > > deliberately elided what?
> > "and put them in his KaZaA shared folder"
> > >
> > >
> > > wrong? how?
> > 
> > By saying that the RIAA was suing Howell for merely ripping files 
> for  
> > his personal use.
> > 
> ----
> one more thing, just to point out something that you obviously 
> missed,
> that was exactly the point the author was trying to make...if you 
> look
> at the 'comments' section below the article itself, you will the 
> author
> states...
> 
> "Yes, it's true that the RIAA accuses Howell of distributing music 
> via a
> sharing network. See the actual filings in the case here:
>
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation
-documents.html#Atlantic_v_Howell
> 
> But that's not the point I'm making in the column. What's new in 
> the
> Howell case is the decision by lawyers for the recording industry 
> to
> argue that even a legally-obtained CD may not be transferred to an 
> MP3
> file on your computer. That argument can be found here, on page 15:
> 
>
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAAS
upplementalBrief
> 
> 
> Posted by: Fisher | December 30, 2007 12:08 AM"
> 
> the original article w/comments is here...
> o_consumers_e.html
> 
> Craig

I can certainly see how you could conclude that the RIAA is saying the
conversion of a CD's music to .mp3 format was a violation of their
copyrights.  But I read their argument a bit differently.  They do not
explicitly state that the conversion of music to .mp3 and its storage on
a PC is the violation.  What they say is that the .mp3 conversion, when
stored in a shared file, becomes an unauthorized copy.  If my reading is
correct, then it is the storage in a shared file that makes it
unauthorized, not the ripping.  Below is the actual paragraph in
question:
"C. Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted
sound recordings on his computer and actually disseminated such
unauthorized copies over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. 
It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of
Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound
recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant’s
computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-6); Exhibit 12
to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.) 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.
My reading of this paragraph keys in on the "and" in the last sentence:  
"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."
That said, I hope most people interpret this paragraph the way you have,
instead of the way I have.  The more anger focused against the RIAA the
better, imo.  
I am not against them suing folks who make money pirating their music,
nor for suing folks who deliberately file share copyrighted music.  But I
sure hate the DRM infringement on my fair use of what I have purchased.
(I'm usually just a lurker on this forum, but this particular exchange
has really captured my attention -- and not because I share illegal
music.)
Marvin
  

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20080103/cc80dd8a/attachment.htm