In a recent Slashdot discussion, the claim is made that a new brief in favor of summary judgment by the RIAA is trying to change the definition of copyright infringement. I disagree with this interpretation of the Brief, and believe that such a reading ignores the context of the RIAA’s claims.
I feel strange defending an association whom I abhor, but nevertheless, the following is my response.
I wonder how many of us actually read the brief all the way through? It’s clear from the context that “Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies” means it is the act of compressing into MP3 and placing in a Kazaa shared folder that is at issue, not the act of compressing the MP3 itself.
The RIAA makes no claim in the brief regarding the Defendant’s possession of MP3 files and pornography on his computer, other than the fact he created a shortcut to said items and admitted to their use constitutes knowledge of their existence which, along with their placement in a shared folder, constitutes willful infringement. There is only one question in the brief in favor of summary judgment related to this question:
2. Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an “unlawful copy” of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?
According to the Plaintiff, it was the act of converting to MP3 and then placing the recording in a shared folder with the intent to distribute on a peer-to-peer network which was the infringing action… not converting to MP3 itself. The two actions together, they maintain, constitute the creation of an unlawful copy. The title of the article, “RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized”, is misleading.
I don’t see this brief as an attempted reversal, but as testing the waters to clarify exactly at what point copyright infringement occurs. In my opinion, the RIAA finally gets the definition right: if you copy the CD of my music that you purchased, you are not infringing. You can even make a copy to give to friends, and you are not infringing. If you make a copy so that they can make more copies, or perform it publicly or display it, you are infringing.
Disclaimer: I am both a supporter of peer-to-peer networking and an independent musician and author with numerous copyrighted works. I think the RIAA is evil, but that their direction is set by their members and that it is those producers who are accountable for their actions and should exert pressure on their lobbying organization to be socially responsible when performing necessary actions to enforce copyright.