Judge explained today his ruling in case RIAA vs. MP3.com according to MP3.com's My.MP3.com service that he ruled to violate U.S. copyright laws.
Judge basically just rejected MP3.com's argument that there was no copyright violation because subscribers were required to prove that they already owned the CD version of a recording received via the Internet from MP3. In essence, MP3 was saying that it was merely storing subscribers' recordings for them, for replay anytime, anyplace.
"In actuality," the judge is reported to have written, "defendant is replaying for the subscribers' converted versions of the recordings it copies, without authorization from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs."
WTF?, I just ask... Since when have people lost their right to the product that they've purchased with their own money. Maybe next car industry decides that we can't sell our pre-owned cars anymore?
"In actuality," the judge is reported to have written, "defendant is replaying for the subscribers' converted versions of the recordings it copies, without authorization from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs."
WTF?, I just ask... Since when have people lost their right to the product that they've purchased with their own money. Maybe next car industry decides that we can't sell our pre-owned cars anymore?
