Well this _is_ an interesting defense.  And to the computer-uninformed
it just might work.  Most judges seem to be "computer-uninformed".

Being that nowadays music is rarely recorded to a true [analog] "sound
recording" (this being vinyl or analog tape) and today is almost always
in a digital format, their case seems a bit weak to me.  I mean, today
music is in digital format from the recording studio (stored as computer 
files) to the mixing and editing (again done on a computer) to the CD
that you buy at the store.  The file that you download off Kazaa is not
that different.

With this in mind, the concept that a song on a computer hard drive,
by virtue of being in a different format than that of a CD, does not
qualify as a sound recording, might not fly.  You may not be using a CD
player to play the song but either way it still comes out as a _sound_
recording.

Despite all this, I do hope that Kazaa prevails.  I hope that in time
we have a wide range of companies like Kazaa.  I don't have problem
with paying for music that I might download on-line as long as it has
no restrictions on use -- the same as when you buy a physical CD.
Currently on I-Tunes or the several other pay-for-play web sites
this is not the case.  The files you download have "digital rights
management" built-in that restricts copying and transferring.

I think the whole concept of copyright really needs to be looked at
closely and perhaps retooled for our modern times of CD's, computers,
Kazaa, and of course piano rolls.  I think the wide range of options
we have today to get music, including Kazaa, does not fit well with
current copyright law or the way that the record companies currently
do business.

If Kazaa does win its case in Australia it should be very interesting
to see how this same idea might be interpreted in the US courts.

Musically,

Ray Finch
Albuquerque, New Mexico