Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
Now they're in open (court) denial, claiming precisely the opposite. Props to PATNEWS's Greg Aharonian who pointed to an online PDF of an RIAA brief in Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v Pamela and Jeffrey Howell. If you scroll forward to page 15 of the brief you find language asserting that the Howells converted their own recordings (presumably CDs) to MP3 format and in this process "they are no longer the authorized copies."
It appears that Howell is self-representing. I wonder if he's aware of Grokster or if someone would like to make him aware...
Is the RIAA here arguing that merely encoding the file from its original format to mp3 is unauthorized, OR is it stating that the act of encoding the file into the mp3 format AND moving the file into "shared" folder makes the files unauthorized?
The latter possibility would be one way to differentiate its otherwise contradictory claim. Presumably the factor which makes the files unauthorized could be placing them in the "shared" folder and the RIAA could then argue these files are not authorized to be shared. I'm not sure the complaint is arguing that ripping files to the mp3 format and keeping them on a computer makes the files unauthorized.
While I will point out the RIAA's ridiculous statements every chance I get, this does not appear to be one. The text of the filing clearly states that they are no longer authorized *once they are put into a shared folder*. Now I disagree with the RIAA that this should make them no longer authorized, but you can't leave out the "once they were in the shared folder" part as you do above.
This is not a new argument they're making. They're making the same "make available" argument they've made in the past.
OK, the precise sentence is "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."
So one reading is that placing recordings in the shared folder makes them no longer the authorized copies, but the very next sentence is about the defendant's lack of authority to distribute authorized copies. From this I read that the simple act of placing recordings in the folder, while objectionable, doesn't constitute making them not-authorized. The act of conversion to MP3 is specifically called out in the document.
I therefor feel it's completely reasonable to read this document as saying "if you rip CDs to MP3 they're no longer the authorized copies." I think Beckerman is correct in making the point that there's a distinction between the status of the copies (authorized/unauthorized) and what was done with them.
I stand by my reading of the document, at least for now.
1. Mike on December 17, 2007 3:54 PM writes...
Is the RIAA here arguing that merely encoding the file from its original format to mp3 is unauthorized, OR is it stating that the act of encoding the file into the mp3 format AND moving the file into "shared" folder makes the files unauthorized?
The latter possibility would be one way to differentiate its otherwise contradictory claim. Presumably the factor which makes the files unauthorized could be placing them in the "shared" folder and the RIAA could then argue these files are not authorized to be shared. I'm not sure the complaint is arguing that ripping files to the mp3 format and keeping them on a computer makes the files unauthorized.
Permalink to Comment2. Mike Masnick on December 17, 2007 4:53 PM writes...
This point has been discussed at great length elsewhere, and I still fail to see how anyone can parse it the way you do above:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/101325.shtml
While I will point out the RIAA's ridiculous statements every chance I get, this does not appear to be one. The text of the filing clearly states that they are no longer authorized *once they are put into a shared folder*. Now I disagree with the RIAA that this should make them no longer authorized, but you can't leave out the "once they were in the shared folder" part as you do above.
This is not a new argument they're making. They're making the same "make available" argument they've made in the past.
Permalink to Comment3. drwex on December 18, 2007 2:07 PM writes...
OK, the precise sentence is "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."
So one reading is that placing recordings in the shared folder makes them no longer the authorized copies, but the very next sentence is about the defendant's lack of authority to distribute authorized copies. From this I read that the simple act of placing recordings in the folder, while objectionable, doesn't constitute making them not-authorized. The act of conversion to MP3 is specifically called out in the document.
I therefor feel it's completely reasonable to read this document as saying "if you rip CDs to MP3 they're no longer the authorized copies." I think Beckerman is correct in making the point that there's a distinction between the status of the copies (authorized/unauthorized) and what was done with them.
I stand by my reading of the document, at least for now.
Permalink to Comment