@ RagManX, #23

I agree that the wording in the heading of this section can easily be interpreted to say that the original .mp3 files were unauthorized, and perhaps this is what they do mean. I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try to get that somewhere in a legal decision. It would make their future bullying much easier.

My main disagreement with accepting this interpretation completely is that later in this section they do try to show why the recordings are unauthorized:

"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 bit was that by 'unauthorized copies' they mean 'the .mp3 files in his KaZaa shared folder', not just '.mp3 files located on his hard drive'. If this is the case, they may have legs to stand on. I'm not well versed enough on the legal precedence in this area to know what other lawsuits have said about this conjunction of format and location as a definition of what constitutes unauthorized copies, so this may too be incoherent.

Without them explaining what they mean in that sentence, I cannot come to any solid conclusions one way or another. I hope the case gets dismissed or defeated simply so that this poor wording cannot be entered as legal precedence in the future. That section heading alone, without an opinion stating how it is to be interpreted, could set back any progress RIAA opponents quite a bit.

@ Russell Letson, #22

Good catch. Yes, it poses the question (I loathe circular definitions, so I wonder why I did not know this). That whole sentence needs to be redone really. What I meant to say was:

There is a distinctive and worrying wording there that poses the question, "is it the fact that they are in .mp3 format, that they were in his shared folder, or the combination of the two that is the problem." (It should be noted here that the "shared folder" here, if you read the brief in full, it is meant the KaZaa shared folder, not somewhere he put them for his wife.)

This is what I get for responding while doing 5 other things at the same time.

Since we keep getting partial quotes here, the following is drawn from the Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief found here:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

"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. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint were stored in the .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant’s computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant’s computer. (See Jacobson Decl. ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1 thereto.) Each of these actual, unauthorized disseminations of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works violates Plaintiffs’ exclusive distribution right under the Copyright Act. See Perfect 10, 416 F. Supp. 2d at 844. In addition, Defendant unlawfully distributed all 54 of Plaintiffs’ Sound Recordings by making unauthorized copies of the recordings available to other KaZaA users for download. See Perfect 10, Inc., 487 F.3d at 719; Napster, 239 F.3d at 1014; Hotaling, 118 F.3d at 203; Lott, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 722."

This seems to be the offending line:

"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."

There is a distinctive and worrying and there which begs the question is the fact that they are in .mp3 format, that they were in his shared folder (and by this, if you read the breif in full, it is meant the KaZaa shared folder, not somewhere he put them for his wife), or the combination of the two that is the problem.

@Rob, #11:

"If the shared folder is for family use only, I don't have a problem with it. So if instead of a shared folder, each ripped it, it's OK? Or do you expect the husband to buy the CD *AND* the wife to buy the CD, two copies in the household, each to be ripped seperately?"

The issue here is not that it was in a shared folder on his private network for his wife to take, but that it was in his KaZaa shared folder.

I'd like to note I think the RIAA are a bunch of spineless assholes who need to get in touch with the 21st century, but if we're going to stick it to them, we need to be sure they're actually doing something blatantly stupid.

I think the best point I can make is to direct my brief comment time to something Larry Lessig said in his presentation at TED in March 2007 (a link to a video of this talk can be found here on BoingBoing). Here he is speaking on the remixing of music and video found online, which is becoming more and more pervasive and acceptable in digital culture, especially among the youngest generations. This certainly also applies to those up and coming authors who wish to play off the ideas or, or directly draw from, great writers past and present.

"We live in this weird time, this kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what we are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting, and in a democracy we ought to be able to do better...do better, at least for them, if not for opening for business."

Love the new look and the bbGadgets blog.

I have to agree that some coloring on the links would be awesome for readability, but other than that it looks great.

Here's to many more years of excellent reading!

Cheers,

- Brandon