posted Aug 09, 2000

RIAA's documents Music & MP38/9/2000; 6:41:56 PM I explicitly looked for these when this issue was more topical but could not find them. Perhaps they've moved or become more prominent, or perhaps the RIAA was just slow putting them up? At any rate, see the RIAA's Napster Lawsuit Documents, most notably their reply (in PDF form) to Napsters request to stay the injunction shutting the service down.There are some good points... lawyers paid that much should make at least a few . They catch Napster's brief in a few places that I think are indeed weak. However, I see two places where I think they really screwed up. One is not really "their fault", which is the assertion that a computer is not a digital recording device. This is incorrect. Any computer with a sound-card is a digital recording device. This is how I created my MP3 file... it was recorded on my computer. If my computer is not a digital recording device, then this recording apparently sprang forth from the ether.It depends on what a "recording device" is. The obvious definition, "A device capable of recording audio digitally", means my computer is one. Admittedly, this is obviously not what was meant by the law, as when one uses Napster one is not using the computer as a digital recording device; a computer is many things, not necessarily simultaneously. This probably means this law needs tweaking.Secondly, when it comes time for the RIAA to establish that this infringement would not have happened without Napster, they fall flat on their face. Either they're blind and truly believe Napster is the only way to aquire MP3's, or they are lying about Napster being the only way. There just isn't much in-between.And it's worth one final note: The court to which this brief was submitted did indeed stay the injunction, despite this document.


Site Links


All Posts