Slashdot Log In
MP3.com Loses In Court
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Apr 28, 2000 03:01 PM
from the the-ligitious-society-keeps-on-eating dept.
from the the-ligitious-society-keeps-on-eating dept.
The Code Hog was among the first to write with the news that "CNBC is reporting that MP3.com lost its court case with RIAA; the court finding that MP3.com is infringing on 'thousands' of artists property." Alert readers like Szyzyg and SethJohnson contributed links to coverage on zdnet and on yahoo respectively.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MP3.com Loses In Court
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 427 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's a single-use, non-transferrable license ... (Score:3)
The license which allows you to make a single copy of a piece of music for your own uses is a double-edged sword. You can make your own copy, but you can't give that copy to anyone else - *EVEN IF* they also have the same CD. The license is non-transferrable.
So MP3.COM's massive database of songs is cool and kosher, and they're allowed to build it - they're just not allowed to let anyone else access it, under the single-use non-transfer license clause by which most commercial music is covered.
I think that's the crux of the issue. It sucks, but it's going to be interesting to see how this one progresses
(Please note, I'm not a proponent of the RIAA - I'm all for free music, I'm just trying to get my head around the differing viewpoints in this case)
Re:How bad is this going to get? (Score:3)
But you can criminalise it, which is what is slowly but surely happening.
As a result, MPPP down 40% (Score:3)
---
Re:Why should they lose (Score:3)
There seems to be a lot of confusion over this.
Mp3.com provides two (actually more) completely different services. The service you are referring to is where musicians make MP3s freely available through mp3.com. And they can also use it as a store, where people can, after listening to a song, buy a CD from mp3.com's musicians. You are right that there is nothing illegal about this, and I am totally confident that RIAA will never be able to stop this sort of activity from happening (in general; it remains to be seen if mp3.com itself survives).
This case is about something completely different. A few months ago, mp3.com started to offer a new service, where they transmit MP3s that they did not receive from the musicians, without even getting the musicians' permission. It is pretty much blatant piracy, except for one catch.
The catch is that they use a challenge/response protocol to verify that you already own the CD that the music was ripped from. Their argument seems to be that sharing copyrighted materials (without the permission of the owner) is Ok, as long as the receiver proves that they already have that material (and therefore, the copyright owner is not getting ripped off). It's a very loose and liberal interpretation of Fair Use. (It kinda makes sense to me, but sheesh, they're really splitting hairs.)
It was a gamble. All I can think of is that mp3.com expected to get sued, and was hoping that their gamble succeeded, so they could set a precedent that would cause their idea of Fair Use to become a new convention.
---
I'm tempted to feel put out.. but... (Score:3)
This does not change the fact that mp3.com does not have the right to profit (and in the web, hits=profit) from others work without permission, and that is exactly what they were doing.
Well.. (Score:3)
Quotes from MP3.com's official press release (Score:3)
NEW YORK, April 28, 2000 -- MP3.com (NASDAQ: MPPP) had its day in court against the major record labels today, as U.S. District Court Justice Jed Rakoff granted a summary judgment on behalf of the labels in their suit filed over MP3.com's My.MP3.com service.
"This is not a victory for the record labels--it's a loss," MP3.com Chairman/CEO Michael Robertson said in response to the decision. "New technologies for delivering music are here to stay, and the technology trend is moving in only one direction: forward.
"The record companies are at a crossroads and are required to make a decision about the technology that they choose to embrace. My.MP3.com is a system which requires the purchase of CDs in order to function, as opposed to other services like Napster that do not require users to first purchase a CD before accessing music. The labels made the decision to challenge a technology that will protect their intellectual property interests and grow their business. They will be left with copyright chaos, as we're witnessing today."
Despite the recording industry's claims that online music services are damaging their business, music sales figures in the United States were up approximately 8 percent in the first quarter of 2000 over 1999's first quarter, according to music sales authority Soundscan, which tracks music sales at points of purchase throughout the United States.
"By standing against the My.MP3.com technology, the recording industry is standing against increased revenues for its members and damaging the chances of a responsible music delivery system to counter the unregulated systems like Napster and Gnutella. These systems do not compensate artists and rights owners," Robertson said. "When pioneering new technologies designed to grow their businesses are attacked, it leaves a vacuum which will be filled with technologies unfriendly to artists and their existing revenue streams." Since its inception, MP3.com has been a champion of artist's rights. We'll continue this mission."
Re:Not that I am particularly happy about this, bu (Score:3)
MP3.com is lisenced with the ASCAP (see here [ascap.com]).
- Following last week's announcement by ASCAP of its historic and unique strategic relationship with MP3.com., the reaction from ASCAP members has been uniformly positive, with many expressions of support. Among the most prominent of ASCAP members to issue statements praising the agreement are pop/rock superstar Alanis Morissette and Desmond Child, the writer and producer behind a long string of pop, rock and Latin hits.
The ASCAP is "a membership association of over 80,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers. ASCAP's function is to protect the rights of its members by licensing and paying royalties for the public performances of their copyrighted works.".So MP3.com was definitely allowed to "publicly perform" the MP3's. I don't know how close that is to digitally reproducing them, but it at least allows radio stations to broadcast the songs.
If you check the RIAA's filing [mp3.com] on the lawsuit, you'll see that they are suing MP3.com for copying the data from the CD to MP3.com's computers, not for actually distributing the data. It seems like quite a stretch to me.
--
Re:But wait, they're *NOT* the same bits!!! (Score:3)
A ZDNet article (here [zdnet.com]) mentions all the laws associated with webcasting MP3's via shoutcast or somesuch.
One of the issues is "ephemeral recordings", which is a temporary recording used to make transmission easier (eg. ripping from CD to MP3). It's generally not allowed, but it is allowed under some restrictions that I haven't figured out yet.
- Exemption for Ephemeral Recordings. For example, the phonorecord of a musical work created for use as a master server copy may be entitled to exemption from licensing as an "ephemeral recording" under 17 U.S.C. 112(a). Under this provision, an entity entitled to transmit to the public a performance of the musical work (e.g., under authorization from one of the performing rights societies, as discussed below), may make one phonorecord of a particular "transmission program" embodying the performance if the phonorecord (a) is not distributed or further reproduced, (b) is used solely for the Web broadcaster's transmissions or archival or security purposes, and (c) is destroyed within six months, unless preserved solely for archival purposes. (The Copyright Act defines "transmission program" as "a body of material that, as an aggregate, has been produced for the sole purpose of transmission to the public in sequence and as a unit." ) (quoted from here [cov.com])
In other words, the only people who are allowed to rip CDs are those who have special license and are going to publicly webcast it. And even then, they can't keep the copy around afterwards.In other words, you're not allowed to rip CDs at home? I'm not sure, I can't make sense of the legal babble. Slashdot really needs to hire a lawyer or two to help with the discussions.
--
Terse order? (Score:3)
- Judge Jed Rakoff of U.S. District Court for the Sourthern District of New York issued a terse order holding MP3.com "liable for copyright infringement."
Does anyone know if/where the full text of the "terse order" is available online? As fun as it is to speculate wildly about the facts, I'd like to see what exactly influenced the judge to make this decision.The only thing I was able to find was the website for the court mentioned above. (click here [uscourts.gov]) But I couldn't find anything more. It's too bad I don't live in New York or I'd get a copy of the thing and type it up myself...
--
local bands != internet bands (Score:3)
If they market crap so they should not be compensated for marketing crap. If they market a good band then I'm just rewarding them for rewarding the artist. Why shouldn't I just reward the artist directly?
You could claim that I should be rewarding them for picking a good band to market, so that they will pick a good band in the future, but I do not buy this argument. The marketing a good band was a fluke. They will just market more crap in the future because there is more money in marketing crap.
Now it's reasonable to say, "I won't support any RIAA label bands (I will just pirate their shit and not send them any money), but I will send money to local/internet bands." since the RIAA label bands are making most of their money from the system, but the independent artists can really be influenced by recieving 5 grad of donations from their fans.
My solution: support local, independent artists. Go to your local clubs, see some of these up-and-coming bands (if you're in Saskatoon, SK go see Old Guard Road). Buy one of their CDs if you like them. If you don't like them, hey, you're in a club - keep drinking until the music sounds better.
Clearly, these are good things to do (clubs & live music are fun), but remember "local bands != internet bands." that local band you support by going to the concerts may sell you out by getting a recording contract and suing Napster (or the next new technology). You should really support artists who seem commited to internet/mp3 marketing and promotion (like Sunscream, Negitiveland, etc.). We want the bands who hate the RIAA more then we do, to be the ones to mkae it big. Local artists are importent because they can become internet bands, but they are not necissarily the good guys yet.
The Cause is not yet lost (or won)... (Score:3)
What kind of business sense? (Score:3)
It IS illegal... Re:Not that I am particularly (Score:3)
Aarrrggghhh. This was pointed out before, in an article a month or two ago. I guess it wasn't moderated high enough fast enough soon enough to educate everyone... I saw it, but it seems like most people did not.
This seems like a pretty clear case of '3rd party helping me excercise my fair use rights' to all of us. HOWEVER, that exact circumstance, having a 3rd party help you utilize your fair use rights which involves them physcially replicating copyright works in your name, was specifically made illegal (excluded from the tecnical definition of fair use) a long time ago, in a cassette-tape / something-or-other type case.
Basically, it was along the lines of the DMCA. They slipped one by you in the legislative system, you're screwed, I'm screwed, and so is MP3.com.
Of course I am not intimately familiar with the details, I just remember reading the post I mentioned above a month or two ago.
Can someone else please dig up the exact reference, or can someone who knows the real details that I am painfully trying to explain without the details myself, post them, and some nice people will moderate you all the way to the top?
Remember, kids (Score:3)
The music industry's complaints are just the new, improved white-collar version of what's been happening to blue-collar workers, small farmers, and mom-n-pop shops. They'll lose this fight. But it's up to you to help them lose, by whatever means you consider to be ethical. If women, African-Americans, or immigrant groups had listened to what The Man said was Right, they'd still be on their knees working for pennies if they were lucky. They didn't - and the world's a better place for all of us because they fought for what they thought was right. Oh my! And sometimes they even broke the law by doing so!
The music industry is trying to take control of the oldest tradition humanity has of a shared, free, and open experience. And how do they make all theri money? Exploiting technical innovations. Oh, I see - MP3s are "different." Yeah, right: do the math and tell me please, who are the real pirates?
Just make sure, if you decide to break the rules, that you can and do explain why you made that choice. And that, beyond just "profiting" from breaking those rules, you've done everything you can to change those rules through established political processes.
Laws can be wrong, and if enough people oppose them they can be changed. No one ever said opposing them was fun or easy or even safe, though. But sometimes you have to do what you think is right. As always, the most important aspect of doing so is teaching others to think the issues through, instead of just snapping to attention because The Man told them to.
IANALBISAAHIELN (Score:3)
Re:But wait, they're *NOT* the same bits!!! (Score:3)
The intellectual property being protected has nothing to do with bits. The bits are just a representation
of the actual IP, the music. When you buy ANY copywrited material, you are buying one
represetation of the material and the right to enjoy that representation of the material.
Current fair use policies allow you to make a limited number of copies of the IP for your own use, but
you certainly can't make money off those copies and still have it considered fair use. What form those
copies take (tape, CD, mp3, etc) is largely irrelevant. What mp3.com did was made copies of music and
then made money (even if indirectly) from those copies.
If I buy a book, make 50 copies of that book, then sell those copies only to people who already own
the book because the loose leaf binders I've distributed them in are more convenient, then I've
broken the law. Even if I give the copies away in order to attract people to my store, I've still broken
the law.
The Crux of the Matter... (Score:3)
A lot of people think it's blank-and-white but I'm not so sure. It's not just the physical object. I expect that anyone would object if they purchased, say, Beethoven's 9th but instead received a blank disc. The encoding of the music obviously adds value.
I think it's clear that in fact, when you purchase a CD, you are really buying both a physical object and a "license" to play the music. After all, why do CDs cost so much more than cassettes of the same album? It is not production costs -- I believe the CD is actually cheaper to manufacture -- and it'd be ludicrous to pretend that it reflect the difference in "up-front" money and marketing expended by the company. But of course a CD lasts longer and is tremendously more convenient than a tape, and some of the cost reflects that added value.
But in the end, is "Bridge Over Troubled Water" a different song when recorded on CD than on cassette? To what extent am I purchasing a particular medium, and to what extent am I trying to hear Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel regardless of medium?
I have the intution that, eventually, we'll realize that it's the information that matters -- that the music, not the medium, is what one buys. But I don't see the path from here to there, and until we find it, the legal system will get twisted further in knots.
Lawsuit workaround (Score:3)
For what it's worth, which may not be much: (Score:4)
I have five albums up for sale at mp3.com:
- anima is rock instrumentals on animal themes, eclectic, with some fine performances
- Extended Play is long-format rock instrumental music- hot, guitar-based jams with some Mothers influences
- Hard Vacuum is a dedicated Noise album that revells in raw sound-as-sound
- The Room Full Of Windows [mp3.com] is vocal indie pop/rock from the heart
- The RFW Demos [mp3.com] are songs that didn't make the RFW album, but something about them seemed cool enough to put together a demos reel
All of these are $5.99- through mp3.com's impressively fast CD-to-order facility, you could buy any of these CDs and have 'em within a couple of days, pretty CD cover and all.If anyone had entertained thoughts of maybe getting one of these someday, or for that matter of ever picking up a CD to support some other mp3.com artist, or even downloading stuff...
damages: $0.00 (Score:4)
didn't it say damages were yet to be awarded?
the interesting judgement would be to conclude (fact of law) that while MP3.com did something wrong, that since no harm was done (no CD sale was lost by action of MP3.com), no damages are due.
that'd be justice: all wrongs made right, and yet not endorsing further extortion by the record industries.
Re:Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from? (Score:4)
See RIAA's filed complaint here [mp3.com]. Paragraph 26:
- In order to create and offer this service, defendant copied every track from 45,000 commercial audio CDs onto its computer services. All or virtually all of these audio CDs are marked as copyrighted and contain explicit notices prohibiting unauthorized copying.
... Included among these infringing reproductions are copies of thousands of copyrighted sound recordings owned by plaintiffs, none of whom has authorized defendant to make any such reproductions.
Also, paragraph 34:- Defendant has willfully and with full knowledge of plaintiffs' copyrights made infringing reproductions of thousands of plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings for the purpose of operating its commercial My.MP3 interactive service.
In fact, if you look through the actual allegation of copyright infringment (the 1st and only count alleged against mp3.com, paragraphs 31-36), the only copying really mentioned is copying from the physical CD to MP3.com's computers.They also allege that MP3.com is distributing these "infringing reproductions", but that's not in the actual count itself.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it seems that this could be a huge precedent that could prevent home users from making MP3 copies from CDs that they legally own.
--
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss (Score:4)
Which brings up the point of an exact copy. Yes, you could defeat it with an exact copy. But who is at fault there? The person who copied the CD? The person who copied the CD? Or the person wop accepted the fake? Who got in trouble in school for copying a paper? The teacher who accepted the fake as real?
MP3 radio stations? Digital broadcasts happen now. (Score:4)
They were distributing copyrighted material without a license. Even if they were sure that the users alreay owned the CD's, the legality is still very questionable. And with the availability of free ripping software, the usefulness of such a service is also rather questionable.
I wasn't aware it was that black and white - from what I heard it was distinctly grey. MP3 own copies of all the CDs you get beamed. In order to get a CD beamed you have to physically have it at some point - most people will own the CDs rather than nick their friends collections. MP3.com allows to to access MP3's of your CDs once these conditions are met. Now maybe they need a radio playing license or something similar to be able to provide a directed broadcast to your authenticated browser, but in principle it sounds reasonable. Whether this constitutes fair use, which I suspect is MP3's defence, is another matter - the courts don't appear to think so.
How long is it going to be before we get a real MP3 broadcasting radio statio playing MP3's of mainstream artists? With the increase of digital broadcasting over the air (i.e. the UK is going towards digital broadcasts as the BBC ramps up it's transmitters, and satellites have broadcast NICAM digital radio for a while), I see no possible justification to stop some website broadcasting MP3s if they can get a license. Why do I get the feeling that RIAA really don't want that sort of license to arrive?
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
MP3.com broke the law (Score:4)
I don't understand why they risked the future of their company (which was doing quite well and has one of the best domain names on the 'net) without thoroughly researching how this would affect them in the future. Heads are going to roll at MP3.com: their entire legal counsel team should be fired, not for losing the case, but for allowing the company to get in this mess in the first place.
Maybe if MP3.com has gotten themselves licensed by the recording companies first...
Ask yourself this: Where did the MP3 come from? (Score:5)
It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.
It's a case over whether or not MP3.COM can 'steal' (RIAA's terms, not mine) music from other CD manufacturers, for re-distribution. When you sign up for their service you are downloading MP3's of CD's you already own, but which were *made* by MP3.COM. This is the crux of the legal wrangling that RIAA is using to try to bring down the bull of MP3.COM, so to speak...
What this is more similar to, as a case, is radio stations. RIAA's clientele already have vast quantities of precedent for radio stations retransmitting their material, and there's a thing called a 'license agreement' that a radio network must agree to before it can broadcast the latest Britney song... RIAA is arguing that MP3.COM have violated copyrights, much the same way that a Pirate Radio station would have done, by broadcasting material for which they (MP3) haven't obtained a right to use from RIAA's clientele...
Now, it could be that after all of this, MP3 and RIAA go into some sort of licensing agreement which allows MP3 to make MP3's of RIAA's clientele's CD's, but more than likely this won't happen - RIAA is too bloodthirsty, and the music industry already full of hyena's, that this will probably just result in MP3.COM's downfall, sadly. It could be a simple matter, but alas - greedy pigs in the music industry don't see it that way, if they can't control it.
That's just my understanding of this lawsuit, so don't quote me, and please correct me if I'm wrong in assessing this.
My new pledge (join in you want) (Score:5)
"I pirated your new album and really liked it. Here's five bucks. This is way more of a cut than you would have gotten from the record company. See how this could work? Now go tell your label they're moronic dinasaurs and your're sick of them picking at your and your fans' carcasses!"
---
Not that I am particularly happy about this, but.. (Score:5)
They were distributing copyrighted material without a license. Even if they were sure that the users alreay owned the CD's, the legality is still very questionable. And with the availability of free ripping software, the usefulness of such a service is also rather questionable.
------
Don't worry about it, Napster's a different issue (Score:5)
I don't think it's at all unfair to close this service down, since MP3.com can keep offering downloads of songs it *does* have a right to offer, such as from artists who've given permission, have contracts with them for downloads, etc. This was a very limited part of MP3.com's services which was ruled a violation.
Napster is an entirely different issue. Napster is a network, which allows users of the network to connect to each other and download stuff. Napster itself doesn't host songs on its own "site" like MP3.com's MP3 Anywhere or whatever it was called, was doing. So, it's very likely that Napster will be ruled some form of "common carrier" and therefore not liable for what its users do amongst themselves, since its network has a legitimate use in allowing users to distribute non-copyrighted sound files. To make Napster police its network to decide what is and is not copyright infringement would put an undue burden on Napster and similar networks, and is not what a judge would order. In fact, if a network does police itself, then it would become liable--but if it just provides an open service, it can be considered a common carrier. Just my 2 pence...
Reminds me of when ... (Score:5)
The market for games then was so small that one company - Microdeal of St Austell, Cornwall - published virtually all the games on the platform. They were all "ports" of Tandy CoCo games from the states. "ports" means they just patched some ROM addresses, since the machine really was a clone apart from some keyboard lines being switched and having a new ROM (written by a tiny little software company called Microsoft).
Now, anyone still using the Dragon 32 in 1986 was a real enthusiast. A lot of us had bought the disk drive expansion unit, at a cost of around $600, in order to speed up loading and saving our little BASIC programs.
The problem was, Microdeal wouldn't release their games on floppy disk. The market was "too small" - it was tape, or nothing.
I was a hacker, though, so I was capable of hacking the little games and putting them onto disk. Wow. I could fit 26 games onto a single 720K floppy. That was cool. But not everyone had my patience and experience cracking the "protection" they put on these games.
So little me, with my little fanzine, decided to offer a service to people. "Send me your tapes," I said, "and I shall put them onto disk for you, at a cost of only 50p per game." You see, I wasn't in it for the money, I just wanted to help people out. I was just a kid. Anyway, I already had 90% of the games on disk already so those jobs would be easy ;) In fact, it seemed silly to ask for actual tapes, so I just said "send your original inlays, to prove you own the game, and I shall send you a disk with the game on it."
Quite similar to MyMP3.com, really.
Well, Microdeal had a fit. Their President wrote me a very indignant letter, saying I was pirating the games and would I really check people had the games before sending them, and claiming that I was being immoral in offering this service.
Me?! Immoral?! All you guys have to do is write the things onto disk and upgrade people for a couple of pounds ($3.20) but you don't bother; you expect people to use these old-fashioned tapes forever.
(My legal sophistication was a little lacking in those days).
Anyway, I wasn't about to go up against some huge monolithic company like Microdeal, so I withdrew the service, with a tear in my eye.
I guess the point is that this service seems fine and dandy and reasonable, but legally it's on thin ice. I'm a little saddened, but not entirely surprised, at this court decision.
Doesn't make sense (Score:5)
Sure, you could borrow a friend's CD and add that I suppose, but you could also make a tape of it and play it in your car. That doesn't make tapes illegal, just the act of dubbing. I don't know of anyway to get music that you didn't pay for through my.mp3.
But hell, let's all keep heading down this road and keep fighting technology we don't understand. Maybe we should stick to something simple like banging two rocks together to make music. Of course then someone would copyright rocks, and if you tried to play the same rocks in a different place you'd get sued.
-MadDreamer
-Mad Dreamer
The truth about mp3 (Score:5)