by enabling music fans to enjoy their purchased music outside of the home. MP3.com also argued that a copied MP3 file suffered from lesser audio fidelity and lower quality than the equivalent song on a compact disc, so the files in its My.MP3.com library constituted transformative use under copyright law. MP3.com also accused the record companies of copyright misuse by filing a lawsuit for purposes of revenge, while its subscribers were simply engaged in space shifting – consuming their purchased media in different environments – which had been upheld by several Supreme Court precedents. Opinion of the court As stated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff in his opinion: “The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues, but not in this case.” Rakoff rejected arguments by MP3.com that its service merely allowed listeners to practice space shifting, stating that "stripped to its essence, defendant's 'consumer protection' argument amounts to nothing more than a bald claim that defendant should be able to misappropriate plaintiff's property simply because there is a consumer demand for it. This hardly appeals to the conscience of equity." Rakoff also ruled that given recent advances in computing technology and the playback devices used by the typical music consumer, an MP3 file was not substantially different in quality from a compact disc, so a ripped file does not qualify as transformative use under copyright law, while MP3.com's claim that it was protecting or enhancing the music industry was rejected because the service infringed on the companies' distribution rights. Impact With this decision, the court drew a distinction between traditional space shifting, which had previously been allowed, and "virtual" space shifting as practiced by My.MP3.com. This type of virtual space shifting required the creation of a copy at the MP3.com servers, which in turn required authorization from the copyright owners under copyright law. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. was cited at the time as an important decision in the then-burgeoning practice of file sharing and the trading of unauthorized music and media files on the Internet. However, some scholars argued that the ruling only addressed the specific business model practiced by My.MP3.com, and left larger file sharing trends on the Internet unaddressed, particularly those practices not covered by a legitimate (if unsuccessful) business plan. The ruling also neglected to address any responsibilities that the legacy record companies may or may not have had in the management