P.S.: The same filing also had this to say: "Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...."

Combining the two statements, one discovers a classic case of overplaying the hand. There is simply no way imaginable that the RIAA will be able to convince any reasonable person(s) that copying a CD one has purchased for backup, or playback purposes in alternative modes (i.e., iPod ripping), is an infringement of anyone's rights.

If they restrict their argument to distribution concerns, they've got a good case, but as soon as they maintain that an otherwise law-abiding person who rips the new Tim McGraw CD to his iPod in order to listen to it at the gym is breaking the law and subject to fine and/or liable for damages, well, they've lost. Not even the little ol' grandma who only drives the speed limit in her '89 Caddy in the only driving she does, to the church on Sunday, is going to buy that one. Or any CDs, for that matter.

Another complicating factor: The same music is generally available, be it from iTunes or other online sources, with or without DRM protection, with both implicit and explicit permissions allowing for form-shifting and transportation of the music in alternative forms, for personal use. That strongly implies that similar utilization of a hard-copy CD--i.e., ripping it to an iPod to listen to at the gym--is and should be perfectly legitimate. End of story.