recordings contained on their CDs from any place where they have an Internet connection. To
make good on this offer, defendant purchased tens of thousands of popular CDs in which
plaintiffs held the copyrights, and, without authorization, copied their recordings onto its
computer servers so as to be able to replay the recordings for its subscribers.Specifically, in order to first access such a recording, a subscriber to MP3.com must either
“prove” that he already owns the CD version of the recording by inserting his copy of the
commercial CD into his computer CD-Rom drive for a few seconds (the “Beam-it Service”) or
must purchase the CD from one of defendant’s cooperating online retailers (the “Instant
Listening Service”). Thereafter, however, the subscriber can access via the Internet from a
computer anywhere in the world the copy of plaintiffs’ recording made by defendant. Thus,
although defendant seeks to portray its service as the “functional equivalent” of storing its
subscribers’ CDs, in actuality defendant is re-playing for the subscribers converted versions of
the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs’ copyrighted CDs. On its face, this
makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976.Defendant [claims] that its music computer files are not in fact “reproductions” of plaintiffs’
copyrighted works within the meaning of the Copyright Act. ... Specifically, defendant claims
that the simulated sounds on MP3-based music files are not physically identical to the sounds
on the original CD recordings. ... Defendant concedes, however, that the human ear cannot
detect a difference between the two. Moreover, defendant admits that a goal of its copying is to
create a music file that is sonically as identical to the original CD as possible. ... In such
circumstances, some slight, humanly undetectable difference between the original and the copy
does not qualify for exclusion from the coverage of the Act.Note:A similar result occurred in the litigation between the record companies
and the operators of the Napster website. Subscribers to Napster could locate
a music file on the hard drive of another subscriber’s computer, and download
it in compressed form for playing on their own computer. The U.S. Court of
Appeals (9thCir.) held that a person downloading without authority infringed the
record company’s copyright in the record: A & M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (2001):“...a majority of Napster users use the service to download and upload copyrighted
music.” ... Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate
plaintiffs’ reproduction rights.- TRANSLATIONS
The usual meaning of translation is the conversion of one language or dialect
into another. The first case below deals with this conventional case. The second
deals with translation in the context of computing.- The copyright owner has the exclusive right to translate the work
Radji v. Khakbaz, 607 F. Supp. 1296 (U.S.: District Court, District of
Columbia, 1985)[The plaintiff, the last British ambassador to Iran under the Shah’s reign, wrote
a book called In the Service of the Peacock Throne, which was serialized in(^88) the Sunday Timesof London. The Iran Times, a newspaper published in the