As it turns out, simply reading the legal documents in the case shows that this is not true. The confusion apparently stems from a misreading, or more likely a partial reading of a document filed by RIAA lawyers at the request of the judge hearing the case. The document, which can be viewed freely online, sets the legal groundwork for the RIAA's case.
It includes language indicating that "Other courts have also concluded that placing files in a “shared folder” available to other users for download constitutes a distribution of the files" and "files in a KaZaA user’s shared folder, including Defendant’s shared folder, are “available to other people” for download."
Later in the document is the passage which was misinterpreted in the Washington Post article stating "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." Since the document only mentions a total of 54 MP3 files, rather than the thousands allegedly ripped from the defendant's legally purchased CDs it's pretty clear that the RIAA's position, or at least that of their lawyers, is that only those files in the defendant's Kazaa "shared" folder infringe RIAA members' copyrights.
A RIAA spokesman has since come out to publicly deny the claim made by Marc Fisher, the Washington Post columnist who wrote the original piece. Of course this shouldn't really be necessary since the legal documents clearly don't say what Fisher claimed they do. Neither Fisher nor anyone from the Washington Post has commented since the article was first published 4 days ago.
You can read the document for yourself on the Internet Law and Regulation website.
Written by: Rich Fiscus @ 3 Jan 2008 17:06
