Source

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes over at slashdot:

"In an Arizona case against a defendant who has no legal representation, Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA is now arguing — contrary to its lawyers' statements to the United States Supreme Court in 2005 MGM v. Grokster — that the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. At page 15 of its brief (PDF) it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/28615

You do the math.

"the defendant's ripping of personal MP3 copies onto his computer is a copyright infringement. "

True. But if one follows the precedent set by the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, "no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

Granted, the AHRA specified what ""digital" or "analog" mediums to include, and did not take into account the future of music, nor does it include MP3 files in its definition. But, as with most of our common law, a precedent has been set. It has been acknowledged that ripping MP3 copies is copyright infringement. It also states that no action can be taken for "noncommercial use by a consumer".

The argument shouldn't be whether or not ripping constitutes copyright infringement. The argument should be whether or not a copyright holder has any right to take ANY action against said copyright infringement.

It has been acknowledged that ripping MP3 copies is copyright infringement.

That's not true without conditions, which are still arguable.

Look over at DMusic. Thousands of mp3 files. Not one is infringing. Oh yeah, Radiohead. Therefore, ripping mp3 copies is not necessarily copyright infringement.

Personally, I am highly amused that the legal department of the RIAA is trying to claim that possession of mp3 files is proof of copyright infringement at the same time that what's left of the PR departments at what's left of the major labels has finally decided it's time to try and sell mp3s.

It's like slow-motion comedy. I'm expecting that next they start blaming the acts while forgetting that they picked them out in the first place.

Seems to me the dog is FINALLY biting it's own tail....didn't they try this argument way back in the Napster days? The merry-go-round continues.

2 years ago they said the complete opposite... so which is the truth, RIAA?

bloody liars.

"It has been acknowledged that ripping MP3 copies is copyright infringement."

-----

That's not true PERIOD.

-----

...oh, wait. George quoted and commented by saying "with conditions"

-----

The CONDITION is that the one who "acknowledged" is an RIAA shill.

Honestly, does this surprise anybody here? I merely chuckled when I saw it.

The RIAA can't fool us, but this switcharoo will throw many consumer technology writes for a loop, though.

and by consumer technology writers* I mean traditional newspaper/magazine/webzine columnists.

"2 years ago they said the complete opposite"

And two years before they started suing people they said they'd never do that.

CopyrightLawSucks did an excellent job of putting his (or her) finger right on the issue.

"no action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings"

Digital means digital and analog means analog. Since that language does not exclude MPEG or other compression schemes, I think this is right on point.

My stance is, and shall continue, that MP3s are NOT the entire and original copyrighted tune...if anything, they are just a sampling of the full, original, electromagnetic signature that constituted the original, and much like one can quote selected passages of a written work, I think the MP3 should be covered under fair use.

While I agree with you in principle CodeWarrieor, I think you need to read the 1992 AHRA Act.

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm

Many of the terms used, such as "digital musical recording" are fully defined in the act to narrow the scope of how it can be applied. I'm not an attorney by any means, but the act has such a narrow scope that MP3's cannot be included in the act.

That being said, you also need to look at the principle or purpose of the act. The principle is that noncommercial home use of copyrighted material is a nonactionable offense. In other words, it is copyright infringement, but no copyright holder can take ANY action against the offender. It's purpose was to make it legal for a home user of copyrighted material to be able to make noncommercial (not making money from) use of copyrighted material (such as copying to cassette) without fear of lawsuits from copyright holders (RIAA).

"Look over at DMusic. Thousands of mp3 files. Not one is infringing. "

Good point. These files ARE authorized by the copyrightholder. Therefore, having them on your PC would NOT constitute infringement. But what happens if the copyrightholder changes their mind and unauthorizes such files? Do they then become infringing? And even if they did, they would still be for noncommercial home use, wouldn't they?

This topic shows how confusing and irrational our current copyright laws today are. They do not take into consideration changing technologies. And the fact that copyright terms are too excessive, far too long, makes these complications even more complicated. If more copyrighted material would reach the public domain, less court resources would be wasted arguing over who owes whom for copyright infringement.

"But what happens if the copyright holder changes their mind and unauthorizes such files?"

Nothing, because these guys are musicians and they can't afford to even try to find you, much less sue you. Plus, there's no way to tell the authorized version from an unauthorized version, which has really been the RIAA's problem all along, especially when they start asking p2p sites to block their music.

This is only because they have tried to kill the mp3 format for 8 years, instead of asking for a simple tag in the metadata.

OK...let's examine the word "copy". I use the word copy to mean an EXACT reproduction of the original. There is no way an MP3 is an exact, and full "copy" of the original recording, since the CDs I have purchased do not have the tunes in the loss compression of MP3.

The act says this:
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical
recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly
from a transmission.

I submit the MP3 is NOT a copy in the sense of being a faithful reproduction in every way of the original song in its original mileu.

We read further this definition...
"(5)(A) A "digital musical recording" is a material object--
(i) in which are fixed, in a digital recording format, only sounds, and material, statements, or instructions
incidental to those fixed sounds, if any, and
(ii) from which the sounds and material can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated,
either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(B) A "digital musical recording" does not include a material object:--
(i) in which the fixed sounds consist entirely of spoken word recordings, or
(ii) in which one or more computer programs are fixed, except that a digital musical recording may
contain statements or instructions constituting the fixed sounds and incidental material, and statements or
instructions to be used directly or indirectly in order to bring about the perception, reproduction, or
communication of the fixed sounds and incidental material. "

The terms "MP3" or "MPEG" are not used in the act you cite.

Let's examine the definition of serial recording from the Act...
"(11) The term "serial copying" means the duplication in a digital format of a copyrighted musical work or
sound recording from a digital reproduction of a digital musical recording. The term "digital reproduction
of a digital musical recording" does not include a digital musical recording as distributed, by authority of
the copyright owner, for ultimate sale to consumers. "

Again, we become mired in what constitutes "duplication". If I were to do a pencil sketch of the Mona Lisa, and left out her smile, would ANYONE consider that a "duplicate"? I think not. An MP3 cannot be considered a true copy or duplicate, or a reproduction, in the same sense that copying a couple of chapters from WAR AND PEACE would constitute a copy of that large volume.

If I took a post it note and drew a cartoon of Washington, and a big "1" on it, would anyone believe I had actually made a copy of a dollar bill, or had reproduced the dollar bill? No, because my version is not the same as a real one, not the same size, not the same paper, not the same ink...etc.

I read the AHRA when it was first published, re-read it today, and stand by my previous statements Copy...

The act does not define "lossy compression scheme", MP3, MPEG, nor does it say that a lossy compression in a different format shall constitute a copy, a reproduction, or a duplication.
~Code

If simply having MP3s in a shared folder constitutes infringement, doesn't this pose a liability to anyone who owns an AppleTV, Airport, or any other such means of connecting to their music files remotely within their home? And if so, doesn't this open up Apple (and all other network equipment makers) to liability as well since they manufacture the machines that make such "infringement" possible? Seems to me if the RIAA starts beating that drum too loudly, they'll be up against some mightier foes than twelve-year-olds and grandmothers.

"It's like slow-motion comedy. I'm expecting that next they start blaming the acts while forgetting that they picked them out in the first place." -- gdZiemann

(Clever, George, clever!)


"The AHRA has such a narrow scope that MP3's cannot be included in this act." -- CopyrightLawSucks

Perhaps, but I wouldn't place large sums of money betting on the inevitability of that outcome from the bench. Such issue is whether this act, though not explicitly mentioning MP3s, can be interpreted by intent-of-law jurisprudence to encompass compressed files anyway…despite MP3s not being an exact copy. Note this ominous phrase in the law: "whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission". It's a given that "indirectly from a transmission" (see excerpt that follows) inherently involves less than a perfect reproduction.

A digital audio-copied recording is a reproduction or duplication in a digitally recorded format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission. -- AHRA


"I use the word ‘copy’ to mean an EXACT reproduction of the original. There is no way an MP3 is an exact, full 'copy' of the original recording.
"I think the MP3 should be covered under fair use."
-- CodeWarrior

YOU may want the word 'copy' to be used in that narrow a sense, and YOU might think MP3 format should be covered under fair use, but how would your interpretation preclude a judge or magistrate from deciding less than perfect copies can be covered under intent of codified law?
What I wrote, above, in response to CopyrightLawSucks could apply here.


Actually, considering what both CopyrightLawSucks and CodeWarrior have written, a casual reader might surmise they are both on the same page with most of their premises.

an mp3 is by no means an exact copy. It's lossy compression.