Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Topic Options
#305032 - 11/12/2007 16:30 Told ya so
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
I seem to recall saying something along these lines in earlier discussions of the AHRA, years ago...

The RIAA would like to point out that merely ripping a CD for your own use is a copyright violation.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#305034 - 11/12/2007 16:36 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
And in a related note: It seems that singing Christmas carols gets you in trouble, too:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071210/010636.shtml
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#305035 - 11/12/2007 16:36 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
So, uh, who exactly disagreed with you among this crowd???
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#305038 - 11/12/2007 17:09 Re: Told ya so [Re: tonyc]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
Oh, no, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant it as: "hey everybody, look how idiotic the record industry is still being." :-)
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#305039 - 11/12/2007 17:26 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
tonyc
carpal tunnel

Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Yup, quite idiotic. Their strategy is clear. They see no public image downside to the litigation, but enormous economic benefit to it. So they sue, sue, sue. Sure, "RIAA sues 3 week old baby for $3 billion in damages" might cause some concern among empeg BBS citizens, Slashdot readers, and others who follow these things, but does it really resonate with your average citizen? I doubt it.

I don't see enough people boycotting the big labels to protest to make an impact on their bottom line, so they'll keep doing this as long as judges are willing to hear the cases.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff

Top
#305040 - 11/12/2007 17:29 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Since there are several non-trivial levels of redirection involved, here is what appears to be the offending text from the supplemental brief, p. 15:
 Quote:
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.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#305043 - 11/12/2007 17:36 Re: Told ya so [Re: wfaulk]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
"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.”"


Heh. Incorrectly defining something as having no purpose other than infringement within their own brief. I wish I were a lawyer so I could rewrite reality to suit my own ends, too.
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#305044 - 11/12/2007 17:54 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
It's not incorrectly defined, IMHO. It's just that the sentence doesn't end after the definition, but continues on to include one of the ramifications of having the audio in a compressed format. Namely, that it allows for rapid transmission of files between computers.

Top
#305045 - 11/12/2007 17:58 Re: Told ya so [Re: tfabris]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
They are selectively misquoting something that a judge wrote in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster:

 Originally Posted By: Judge Beezer
The MP3's compressed format allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.

It's a pretty nasty misquote, changing a consequence of a characteristic to a definition.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#305164 - 16/12/2007 16:42 Re: Told ya so [Re: wfaulk]
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2494
Loc: East Coast, USA
 Quote:
"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."

And that is how case law slithers into being, eh?
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#305171 - 16/12/2007 19:39 Re: Told ya so [Re: FireFox31]
ithoughti
old hand

Registered: 17/07/2001
Posts: 721
Loc: Boston, MA USA
what they are saying is not that copying a CD to your HDD is the offending action. The offending action is making the mp3 available in a shared folder. Obviously to make it available, it needs to be copied on to your HDD first.
_________________________
---------
//matt

Top
#305173 - 16/12/2007 21:10 Re: Told ya so [Re: ithoughti]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
Actually they were saying the act of ripping was infringement in the first place. Before the shared folder thing.
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#305176 - 16/12/2007 21:49 Re: Told ya so [Re: FireFox31]
gbeer
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/12/2000
Posts: 2665
Loc: Manteca, California
 Originally Posted By: FireFox31
 Quote:
"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."

And that is how case law slithers into being, eh?


So how is that effectively different from making a cassette tape copy of an lp?
_________________________
Glenn

Top
#305180 - 17/12/2007 00:37 Re: Told ya so [Re: ithoughti]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
 Originally Posted By: ithoughti
what they are saying is not that copying a CD to your HDD is the offending action. The offending action is making the mp3 available in a shared folder.

That is true where "they" is defined as the original judge. When it's defined as the RIAA, they're misrepresenting the original judge's words to as to say that the mere ripping is actionable.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top