It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant’s computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.) Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the ".mp3" extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a "compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. 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.

My reading of this paragraph keys in on the "and" in the last sentence: 

"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."

That said, I hope most people interpret this paragraph the way you have, instead of the way I have.  The more anger focused against the RIAA the better, imo. 

I am not against them suing folks who make money pirating their music, nor for suing folks who deliberately file share copyrighted music.  But I sure hate the DRM infringement on my fair use of what I have purchased.

(I'm usually just a lurker on this forum, but this particular exchange has really captured my attention -- and not because I share illegal music.)

Marvin